HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular (2)AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004, 7:00 PM*
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
March 31, 2004
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S-04-3
P-04-2
Preliminary Plat Approval
Curt Fretham
6800 Indian Hills Road
Final Development Plan
Murphy Automotive
5354 France Avenue
LD-04-3 Paul Schoenecker/Lot Division
5532-5543 Malibu Drive
LD-04-4 Wally Irwin/Rearrangement of Lot Lines
6440 Tingdale Avenue
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
FYI on Heritage Preservation Board — Ann Swenson
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE:
May 26, 2004
V. ADJOURNMENT
*Please note change in time
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004, 7:00 PM
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Byron, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, Helen McClelland, Michael
Fisher, David Runyan, William Skallerud, Geof Workinger, Stephen
Brown
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of the March 31, 2004, meeting were filed as submitted
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S-04-3 Curt Frethan
Preliminary Plat to Create One New Lot
6800 Indian Hills Road
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission on March 1, 2004, the City Council
voted to deny a subdivision of this property. Since that action the proponent has
re-submitted a similar, but not identical proposal for a two-lot subdivision of the
property.
Mr. Larsen explained the new request uses the literal language from our
subdivision ordinance to calculate the dimensions of lots within the plat and
surrounding neighborhood. This interpretation yields slightly different
measurements with the need for a lot width variance disappearing.
Concluding, Mr. Larsen stated staff believes the new plat is not materially
different from the original proposed subdivision and staff would recommend the
Commission forward the application to the City Council with a finding that the
new application is not materially different from the originally proposed plat.
The proponent Curt Fretham was present to respond to questions from the
Commission along with interested neighbors.
Mr. Curt Fretham, 12716 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka, MN addressed
the Commission pointing out as the Commission witnessed in the past it is very
difficult to use Edina code language to calculate lot sizes in an area of irregular
shaped and lakeshore lots. Mr. Fretham said he feels this literal interpretation of
code made the most sense. Mr. Fretham concluded he would agree, if so
ordered, with a 100-foot front yard setback from the road while maintaining 100
feet from the shoreline.
Mrs. Sharon Prevot, interjected and informed the Commission she along
with other neighbors believed the Planning Commission meeting started at 7:30
PM not 7:00 PM and indicated many of her neighbors planned on attending the
meeting this evening but have not yet arrived. Chairman Byron apologized for
the time change indicating this is the first time the Commission has met at 7:00
PM, he added in no way was this change intended as a slight and told staff and
the proponent the Commission will hear the two lot divisions out of order and
continue with the hearing on the subdivision request at 6800 Indian Hills Road at
7:30 PM.
LD-04-3 Lot Division/Paul Schoenecker
5532-5534 Malibu Drive
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the applicant is requesting a party
wall lot division of an existing double bungalow. The property complies with
ordinance requirements for a division of ownership.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend lot division approval.
Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
LD-04-4 Lot Division/Wally Irwin
6440 Tingdale Avenue
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponent is requesting a lot line
rearrangement to create a new lot line establishing two 75-foot lots where three
are located. Mr. Larsen explained presently the property comprises three 50-foot
lots with a house built near the corner, but not encroaching on the second lot.
The proposed division would create two 75-foot lots. The new lot is more
consistent with the lots sizes in the neighborhood and staff recommends
approval
2
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend lot division approval.
Commissioner Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Chairman Byron stated it is 7:30 and asked Mr. Larsen to repeat his staff
report for the benefit of newly arrived residents.
Mr. Larsen reiterated his staff report, and comments from Mr. Fretham.
Chairman Byron asked Mr. Larsen staff's opinion on the literal
interpretation of the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Larsen responded staff agrees
with the position taken by the proponent in calculating lot size, etc. Mr. Larsen
pointed out this is not an area of rectangular lots and the case may be made that
our ordinance better adapts to the more traditional rectangular lot sizes.
Mr. Fretham reiterated the difficulty in calculating lot sizes and told the
Commission all zoning codes will be met and he also has no difficulty in one
driveway serving both lots.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if the City is changing the way
it views lots sizes, etc. Mr. Larsen responded no — this proposal follows the letter
of the ordinance. Mr. Larsen added the point he wants to make is that even with
different ways of calculating lot dimensions the discrepancy between the
approaches is a matter of feet. Concluding, Mr. Larsen said the proposal
presented by the proponent this evening, in his opinion is different but not
substantially different. It remains one lot with a request to create one new lot
with staff recommending that the Commission forward this to the Council as
presented noting the new application is not materially different from the originally
proposed plan.
Commissioner Swenson asked the reasoning behind lots being "dropped"
for this interpretation. Mr. Larsen said lots were dropped from McIntyre Pointe
and Indian Hills Road because of the way the code was intrepretated by the
proponent. Continuing, Mr. Larsen noted the lots dropped off McIntyre are a
result of where the 500-foot neighborhood is measured and the three lots
dropped that are located near Indian Hills Road have no frontage on an improved
street. City Code requires that all lots have at least 30 feet of frontage on an
improved street. The three "dropped" lots (very near the subject site) do not
meet that requirement.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen what the Council would be
asked to approve. Mr. Larsen said the Council would be asked to act on what
the proponent has presented to the Commission this evening
3
Commissioner Skallerud questioned why staff is recommending moving
this forward to the Commission without "acting" on the specific proposal
presented this evening. Mr. Larsen pointed out the Planning Commission voted
to recommend subdivision approval of this property in January. At that time the
vote was 7-1, adding staff believes the proposal this evening is not significantly
different from the one the Commission approved. Commissioner Skallerud
commented that makes sense to him. Continuing, Commissioner Skallerud
noted this proposal could be viewed in a more positive light because a variance
is not required; agreeing with staff that forwarding this to the Council makes the
most sense. Commissioner Skallerud asked if other Commissioners feel the
same.
Commissioner McClelland explained to members of the audience that the
Commission is advisory to the City Council and by the past action of the
Commission this subdivision was forwarded to the Council with the Commission
recommending approval. Concluding Commissioner McClelland stated she has
no problem moving this proposal forward to the council.
Commissioner Brown commented that while he understands what is being
requested (creating one new lot) has not changed, in his opinion, eliminating the
variance with a zigzag line confuses the plat making him more opposed.
Continuing, Commissioner Brown added he is also confused with the literal
interpretation of code as it relates to calculating lot dimensions. Mr. Larsen
acknowledged it has been a struggle to correctly calculate lot dimensions for this
proposal due to the unique and varied lakeshore lots and other irregular lots in
the neighborhood. Concluding, Mr. Larsen noted that however one looks at the
past and present submissions the calculations differ by a matter of feet.
. Chairman Byron stated if he understands correctly if the Commission
adopts staff's recommendation the Commission is indicating that as a body our
recommendation is unchanged from the action we recommended to the Council
in November of 2003. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct. Chairman Byron
asked if any Commissioner wants to speak to this.
Commissioner McClelland commented that while she supported the past
request the request submitted this evening manipulates the code concluding in
her opinion the previous proposal was best.
Mrs. Pervot, 6728 Indian Hills Road, addressed the Commission adding
from what she has heard so far it appears the Commission is in favor of passing
this proposal along to the Council. Mrs. Prevot told Commission Members at the
last Council hearing neighbors were not permitted to speak and at this time they
would like to present their proposal. Mrs. Prevot submitted to the Chair their
agenda.
4
A discussion ensued with Commission Members in agreement to delay
their vote allowing the neighboring property owners to present their agenda.
Ms. Louise Segreto, 6720 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission she has
completely renovated her home and has invested much in her home. Mrs.
Segreto said she is very opposed to this proposal. She added in her opinion it is
a public safety issue. She pointed out if approved, as presented two homes will
now be served from one driveway adding more traffic on Indian Hills Road, which
would negatively impact her property. Ms. Segreto said at present there are
times especially during inclement weather that she virtually slides down her
driveway onto Indian Hills Road and with the addition of another home plus
changes to the topography an even greater safety hazard will exist.
Mrs. Prevot told the Commission she understands by their comments that
to the Commission this proposal isn't significantly different from the previous
proposal, but it is to her. She pointed out with the proposed zigzag change to the
lot line any future home would need to be located farther east which is closer to
her property line. Mrs. Prevot stated she objects to that reiterating she objects to
the proposal period. Continuing, Mrs. Prevot questioned the reasoning behind
eliminating Ms. Segreto's property from the area calculation. Mrs. Prevot pointed
out the Segreto property is within the 500-foot neighborhood and Ms. Segreto
pays property taxes. Her property should be included. Mrs. Prevot also pointed
out that it appears to her, that the circle indicating the lots falling within 500 feet
of the perimeter of the property is unusually shaped and asked if the circle
correctly depicts the 500-foot neighborhood. She pointed out it doesn't appear to
be much of a circle.
Mrs. Prevot added another concern she has is that all properties that have
lakeshore on Arrowhead Lake are not included in the 500-foot neighborhood nor
did they receive notice of this hearing from the proponent, adding she doesn't
believe that is right. She stressed this subdivision impacts all properties with
lakeshore, not only the properties that fall within 500 feet. Mrs. Prevot reported
all properties on Arrowhead Lake pay association fees and to have some of
these properties not included in the 500 foot neighborhood isn't right.
Concluding, Mrs. Prevot said this community is an Arrowhead community and in
her opinion a moratorium should be placed on subdivisions in an established
neighborhood.
Mr. Wothe, 6804 Indian Hills Road, told the Commission he feels strongly
that the lots excluded especially the ones addressing off Indian Hills Road should
be included in the lot size calculations. Mr. Wothe stated the intent of the
ordinance should be maintained and this interpretation does not honor that
intention.
Mr. Joslyn, 6718 Indian Hills Road, addressed the Commission and
informed them he, along with his neighbors, have been struggling with this issue
5
since Thanksgiving. He added he is frustrated by the ever-changing figures,
albeit by only a few feet. Continuing, Mr. Joslyn said in his opinion the surveys or
the way the lot sizes "shake out" isn't correct. He questioned who is responsible
for the discrepancies, Mr. Fretham? Mr. Fretham interjected he hired a licensed
Registered Land Surveyor who signed off on the plat, adding he had nothing to
do with the calculations. The surveyor interpreted the code and the result of that
interpretation is presented this evening. Mr. Joslyn asked why the survey of his
lot differs from County records? Mr. Joslyn suggested that all lots within the 500-
foot neighborhood should be re-surveyed when a subdivision is proposed.
Chairman Byron said it appears to him the City can't do anything about County
records. Chairman Byron questioned Mr. Larsen on the use of County plats to
obtain lot information. Mr. Larsen said all plats are recorded at the County and
are of record. Mr. Larsen said the City of Edina has never required that each lot
be resurveyed within a 500-foot neighborhood. That expense would be
immense. Mr. Joslyn reiterated his survey differs from County records and he
doesn't feel that just because it is expensive that all lots shouldn't be resurveyed
during the subdivision process.
Chairman Byron said this issue can't be resolved at this time and if Mr.
Joslyn feels the code should be rewritten or clarified he should put his request in
writing and Mr. Larsen will forward it to the Council.
Mrs. Prevot said she also has some concerns with how this project has
been presented; she reiterated the circle around the subject site differs from
previous submittals. Mr. Larsen asked Mrs. Prevot to put her concerns in writing
and he would try to get them answered for her as soon as possible.
Mr. Henry Buchwald, 6808 Margaret's Lane, told the Commission his
neighborhood is concerned with what they are seeing occur all around them. He
added how he views this proposal is "an individual who wants to make a profit vs.
a neighborhood that wishes to maintain itself". Continuing, Mr. Buchwald stated
the proponent desires to make a profit from land development and while that is
common practice redevelopment takes on a different meaning when it occurs in
an established neighborhood. Mr. Buchwald said he is perplexed the figures
keep changing. Referring to the previously submitted graphic, Mr. Buchwald
noted the neighborhood has voted this subdivision down and he would like the
Commission to uphold the decision of the neighbors.
Mr. Wothe asked the Commission to note that property owners who did
not receive notification who have lakeshore property are also opposed to this
proposal as previously indicated by Mr. Buchwald. Mr. Wothe reiterated he
continues to be troubled by the lots removed from neighborhood calculations.
Concluding he believes they should be included.
Mr. Fretham said he understands the feelings expressed but his surveyor
followed code and in this situation with the different lot configurations the Edina
6
code is difficult to interpret at best. Mr. Fretham said with regard to comments
about the proposed driveway that the driveway will remain in the location it is in
today. There will be no change. Concluding, Mr. Fretham stated he paid a
professional licensed surveyor to interpret the code and the results are before the
Commission this evening, adding he is sorry for any confusion.
Commissioner Brown reiterated he opposes this subdivision request. He
acknowledged the neighborhood is complicated but in his opinion a dangerous
precedent will be set if the Commission or Council were to allow the zigzag.
Adding the zigzag manipulates the code thereby eliminating the lot width
variance.
Commissioner Fischer explained he is new to the Commission and
questioned if a variance is part of the subdivision process. Mr. Larsen explained
the variance previously requested is a variance from the subdivision ordinance
not the zoning ordinance and is handled at the Commission and Council level.
The Zoning Board of Appeals does not hear it as it hears other variances from
code. Commissioner Fischer said in this instance he doesn't believe there is a
hardship and the depicted zigzag, in his opinion, is a "stretch".
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen to explain with graphics the
changes in calculations noting the changes between previous and present plats.
With graphics Mr. Larsen pointed out how the code was interpreted and the
resulting calculations.
Commissioner Skallerud asked for clarification on the proposed driveway.
With graphics Mr. Fretham pointed out to the Commission the driveway will
remain as is allowing for changes to serve another home.
Commissioner Skallerud moved to forward the present application to the
City Council with a finding that the new application is not materially different from
the previously proposed plat. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion.
Commissioner Brown questioned if a yes vote is saying to the Council we
support this application. Chairman Byron responded that is not how he views it.
What the Commission is saying is that we as a body do not feel the proposal has
changed significantly from what was previously presented. The vote in no way
indicates support of the present application.
Ayes; Fischer, Swenson, Lonsbury, McClelland, Runyan, Brown,
Workinger, Skallerud, Byron. Motion carried.
7
P-04-2 Final Development Plan
Murphy Automotive
5354 France Avenue South
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission Mr. Murphy, property owner is
requesting a Final Development Plan to expand and renovate an existing gas
/car wash/car repair facility. Mr. Larsen explained the site is small and to achieve
the desired result multiple variances are required.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff wants to recommend approval of the Final
Development Plan however, is concerned about future reuses given the
magnitude of the proposed expansion. If approved approval in any form should
be conditioned on the following:
1. Watershed District permits
2. Long term lease agreement for off-site parking
3. No Sunday business operations
4. No re-establishment of car wash or fuel service
5. Closure of two curb cuts nearest intersection of 54th and France Avenue
6. New pad for bus bench setback farther from France Avenue
7. Increase the parking setback along France Avenue to 5 feet to allow for a
better planting bed
8. Add over story deciduous trees to planting bays adjacent to France
Avenue and West 54th Street
9. Install new fence as proposed on west side
10. Remove and replace landscaping on the west
11. Save and trim existing landscaping on north side
12. No accessory retail sales
The proponent, Mr. Tim Murphy was present to respond to questions.
Commissioner Workinger observed that visually the setback from West
54th Street appears different from the plans. Mr. Larsen responded the visual
discrepancy could be the result of landscaping and City right-of-way.
Commissioner McClelland referred to the staff report, under
recommendation, #2, and asked Mr. Larsen what he means by long-term lease.
Mr. Larsen said he believes in this instance if the Commission were to approve
the Final Development Plan a long-term lease is needed. City Ordinance only
allows for the use of leased parking if the term is not less than 25 years. So in
order for leased parking to be permitted at this site Mr. Murphy would have to
negotiate a lease with the church. Continuing, Mr. Larsen added this is a site
with limited parking; however, it is larger than some of the City's "corner" service
8
stations. Mr. Larsen explained in the 1970's the City decided to limit gas stations
but it was found that the gas stations serve the residents and are a good amenity
to our City. Commissioner McClelland said her concern is with the parking of
automobiles that need repair, etc, and the potential for stacking problems,
parking in street, etc.
Commissioner Skallerud said initially he was very concerned about this
proposal, adding he still has considerable concerns, but with the elimination of
the car wash and fuel pumps on this site a benefit can be seen. Continuing, Mr.
Skallerud stated it appears to him the car wash and fuel pumps moved across
the street, to Mr. Murphy's other facility so the quick in and out trips have been
relocated, however, the on-site parking demand at the subject site for "longer
term" parking will increase. Commissioner Skallerud stressed that he doesn't
want to see cars parked on West 54 th Street. He concluded by adding since he
has been on the Commission this is the most aggressive proposal he has
viewed.
Chairman Byron asked Mr. Murphy if he knows the square footage of the
Grandview property. Mr. Murphy responded "off the top of his head" he isn't sure
of the square footage of Grandview adding he knows the Grandview site is much
larger than the subject site. Mr. Murphy said Grandview has 12 bays while the
subject site is proposed at seven bays. Continuing, Mr. Murphy informed the
Commission this site is very difficult to work with. Mr. Murphy explained he has
operated on this corner for over 26 years, adding his goal is to create a more
efficient site and at the same time renovate the site. Mr. Murphy said he believes
with the help of parking spaces leased from the church parking should not be a
problem on site or on West 54th Street. He said the nature of this business is that
there will be fewer trips to this station and the "wait time" is longer. Concluding,
Mr. Murphy explained this type of facility is "less busy", with few, if any, quick in-
and-out trips, that are seen at full service/convenience service stations.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Murphy if he is committed to closing
the "gas" business at this site. Mr. Murphy said there would be no fuel service
pumps at this site.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Murphy if he knows how many parking
spaces are located at the Grandview Station. Mr. Murphy responded to the best
of his knowledge there are around 44 parking stalls.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Murphy if the church is amenable to
entering into a leasing agreement. Mr. Murphy responded at this time that issue
is being negotiated. He said his intent is to have all employees park on the
leased spaces on church property. Commissioner McClelland asked how this
agreement would be handled. Mr. Larsen responded there would need to be a
recorded lease with a clause indicating the number of years the lease runs.
9
Commissioner Workinger commented the site is zoned PCD-4 questioning
if in the future another full service gas station could relocate on this site. Mr.
Larsen said he believes that would be possible. Commissioner McClelland
added if she understands the plans correctly it appears the gas storage tanks will
be removed. Mr. Murphy responded that is correct the storage tanks will be
removed.
Commissioner Brown asked if restricted covenants are needed for this
property if the Commission were to approve the request with conditions. Mr.
Larsen responded when a variance is requested the Commission and Council
can set conditions that would run with the property. Mr. Larsen added a Proof of
Parking Agreement could also be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Murphy how patrons would pick up
their vehicles. Mr. Murphy said cars would be picked up during the normal
business hours He said rarely would a car need to stay on the site of longer than
a day.
Commissioner Skallerud said in his opinion this proposal really pushes the
envelop and he is very uncomfortable with such an aggressive plan. He added in
all good faith he couldn't support the proposal as submitted. It is too dense, the
area too busy, and the site also abuts residential properties and neighborhood.
Commissioner Skallerud moved to recommend denial of the Final
Development Plan. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion for discussion
purposes.
Commissioner Fischer commented he is also worried about the
aggressiveness of the proposal and is worried about the safety of vehicles and
pedestrians as they navigate through the site. He questioned if the inner
circulation on the site would work safely. Continuing, Commissioner Fischer said
he agrees that this proposal "pushes it" and asked Mr. Murphy if he ever
considered eliminating a bay or two.
Mr. Murphy explained that architecturally the placements of the proposed
new bays "square" off the building. Mr. Murphy said he would be agreeable to
looking into eliminating a bay. Continuing, Mr. Murphy's said the way Edina's
ordinance is written, at least in his opinion, it is written for the typical "gas
station", the proposed use is something different so it was difficult to "make it
work" when nothing in the code really addresses this type of use.
Commissioner Runyan said he is somewhat confused with the
maneuvering ability. He added he doesn't think 25 feet is adequate to pull in and
out of a service bay. Mr. Murphy said in his experience 25 feet is adequate.
10
Chairman Byron asked Mr. Murphy to estimate how many cars would be
serviced during a typical business day. Mr. Murphy said with 7 bays, 3-4
vehicles per bay for a total of 28.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen the number of curb cuts that
would be eliminated as a result of this proposal. Mr. Larsen responded two curb
cuts will be eliminated, one on France Avenue and one on West 54th Street
closest to the intersection. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said in her
opinion she agrees with Commissioner Skallerud's comments that this proposal
is aggressive. She added there are too many bays, and reducing the number of
bays would be better for the site. Commissioner McClelland told Mr. Murphy it
appears some Commission Members are having a difficult time with this proposal
suggesting that Mr. Murphy revise his plan and come back before the
Commission with a revised plan.
Mr. Larsen added Mr. Murphy could either continue this to the next
meeting of the Planning Commission or move this plan forward to the Council
with the recommendation from this meeting.
Chairman Byron said he tends to agree that presently City Code language
is written for the traditional service station and over the past 30 years enormous
changes have occurred in the service station business, to include additions of car
washes, convenience stores, and the like. Chairman Byron said at this time the
Commission faces a special challenge in the re-tooling of our small commercial
corners (including the subject site). Chairman Byron pointed out these corners
are not where single-family homes would be constructed, and current
redevelopments of service stations always seem to include convenience
facilities. Concluding, Chairman Byron said the Commission does desire to help
in the "remodeling" of our small business corners, it is important to keep these
corners "healthy", but it is difficult at times especially when so many variables are
unknown.
Mr. Murphy explained it is his goal to renovate this corner. He pointed out
directly across West 54th Street Ed Noonan did a beautiful job renovating his site.
Mr. Murphy reiterated his goal is to improve the site, acknowledging the limits are
being pushed, but in his opinion this use of the site will reduce the traffic at this
corner.
Commissioner Runyan told Mr. Murphy if he decides to return with a
different plan to please submit a plan to scale.
A brief discussion ensued with Chairman Byron calling the question.
Motion to recommend denial of the Final Development Plan for Murphy
Automotive approved.
11
II. ADJOURMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM
Jackie Hoogenakker
1
12