Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes/Edina City Council/June 16, 2009 <br /> Brad Beard, 6516 Waterman Avenue, addressed the Council and spoke on behalf of the project. <br /> Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. <br /> Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Hovland <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Attorney Knutson advised that a Code text amendment was needed to allow efficiency apartments. <br /> He stated such an amendment could be considered by the Planning Commission on July 1, 2009, <br /> and the City Council on July 7, 2009. The Council discussed the affirmative vote taken by a high <br /> percentage of cooperative members and the need for a Code text amendment. <br /> Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2009-57, approving a <br /> Final Development Plan with variances and Final Plat for 7500 York Avenue Cooperative <br /> subject to the following findings for the Final Development Plan: <br /> 1. The proposed plans are consistent with the approved Preliminary Development <br /> Plan. <br /> 2. The proposed addition is consistent with the multiple family housing <br /> developments to the north, south, east, and west. <br /> 3. The proposed density is compatible with densities in the area. <br /> 4. Given the City of Edina's aging population, senior housing is a need in the City. <br /> 5. The existing roadways would support the proposed project. <br /> 6. On May 27, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval <br /> of the Final Development Plan and Rezoning. <br /> And findings for the variances: <br /> 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the location of the existing <br /> underground parking deck, which would not support the proposed addition. In addition, <br /> the proposed building location avoids the large open space and garden area along York <br /> Avenue. Therefore, the applicant is forced to develop a site plan by working around this <br /> structure and the open space. <br /> 2. The proposed four-story addition is reasonably sized given the height of the existing <br /> building and the height of buildings in the area. The density of the project allowed by <br /> City Code would be 44 units per acre. The applicant is proposing a density of 36 units. <br /> Therefore, the proposed building is reasonably sized and a reasonable request given the <br /> practical difficulty of having to design a building around the underground parking ramp. <br /> 3. The building layout of the area where the variance is requested was driven by the <br /> Alzheimer's floor. The rooms are very small. To take three feet off any of the rooms <br /> would not be practical given the needs within the facility, including room windows. <br /> Eliminating the variance would create obstacles and safety issues for the memory care <br /> residents. <br /> 4. The setback variance is for a minor three-foot intrusion into the required setback. <br /> 5. The requested setback variance for the building is adjacent to a parking lot to the west. <br /> 6. The majority of existing units within the existing building do not conform to the <br /> maximum standard of 850 square feet for two-bedroom units and 700 square feet for <br /> one-bedroom units. <br /> 7. It would be reasonable to allow housing units within the addition to be consistent with <br /> the existing units. <br /> 8. The intent of the maximum square footage standards was to ensure some affordable <br /> housing for the Planned Senior Residential Districts. Of the total 76 units, 59 proposed <br /> units conform to the maximum requirement(78%). <br /> 9. The average unit size is 601 square feet, well below the maximum size requirement. <br /> 10. The Zoning Ordinance requirement for maximum unit sizes for senior housing should be <br /> reconsidered for its appropriateness by the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> And subject to the following conditions: <br /> Page 2 <br />