Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005, 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair David Byron, Michael Schroeder, Michael Fischer, John Lonsbury, Helen McClelland, Stephen Brown, Floyd Grabiel MEMBERS ABSENT: David Runyan and Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the January 26, 2005, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: A-05-1 Amendment to Zoning Ordinance & C-05-1 Conditional Use Permit Haugland Companies 3901-3907 50th Street West 5000-5020 France Avenue South Ms. Aaker informed the Commission the City is requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance and Haugland Companies is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow redevelopment on the corner of West 50th Street and France Avenue. Ms. Aaker said the proposal includes a mix of residential and retail and would be developed in phases. The proposed residential uses would need to comply with the standards for the district, but would be exempt from the floor area limit. The residential use would also need to provide private parking to support the project. Mr. Aaker concluded staff recommends preliminary approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance and preliminary approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions: final adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, approval of Conditional Use Permit for dwelling units, easements as required for building and public utilities and Watershed District Permits. Mr. Gene Haugland, applicant and Mr. J. Benshoof and Mr. Dan Young- Dixon were present to respond to questions. Commissioner Fischer commented in reviewing the plans it appears "air rights" will need to be readdressed. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. She stated "air and subterranean rights" need to be addressed and resolved. Chair Byron referred to a letter from Mr. Richard Curtin (owner of the adjacent Ampersand building) and asked Ms. Aaker if the proponent had the opportunity to review Mr. Curtin's letter. Ms. Aaker responded Mr. Haugland was provided with a copy of the letter and if she understood correctly Mr. Haugland personally met with Mr. Curtin. Mr. Haugland addressed the Commission and informed them he has owned Arby's since 1984. Continuing, and with the aid of photo's Mr. Haugland explained his goal is to redevelop two parcels at the corner of West 50th Street and France Avenue. Mr. Haugland said he proposes to replace the current 13,400 square feet of retail space (including Arby's) with 22,500 square feet of new retail space. He added the proposed retail space is all at ground level. Continuing, Mr. Haugland said one thing he believes is important to the project is to widen the sidewalk along France Avenue. He added this proposal would widen the France Avenue sidewalk roughly three additional feet. Mr. Haugland reported another feature in the redevelopment of this area includes constructing 23 condominium units on three levels above the new retail space. Mr. Haugland said parking for condominium owners would be accommodated in a below grade parking garage. Continuing, Mr. Haugland explained to the Commission the project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase would consist of razing Arby's and construction of retail (street level 8,500 square feet) with condo's above. Mr. Haugland said he believes this "phased approach" would reduce disruption for our retail tenants. The second phase consists of razing the remaining retail and constructing new retail with condo units above. Mr. Haugland told the Commission some issues regarding air and subterreran rights are still "up in the 2 air" and it is believed some slight adjustments need to be made. Adjustments also may need to be made concerning the alley and egress/ingress. Chair Byron commented in reviewing the plans it appeared to him the condominiums are setback from the first level retail space. Mr. Young Dixon addressed the Commission and told Chair Byron he is exactly correct in his observation. Mr. Dixon said the residential feature of the development is stepped back significantly offering dimension to the architecture. Mr. Dixon said all units will have an outdoor deck area, however the designed increased setback of the residential units create an outdoor living area that prevents residents from "hanging" over their railing viewing the pedestrians on France Avenue or West 50th Street. Mr. Dixon said this stepped back design feature is especially important on the second level for not only aesthetic reasons but also for safety. Continuing, Mr. Dixon said another feature of the design is to maintain the feel of the France Ave/50th retail stores. Mr. Dixon said careful attention was made to the retail element of the proposal to include a variety of storefronts for an individual city look to the project. Commissioner McClelland asked after Arby's is razed how will the retail elements be incorporated into the new. Mr. Haugland responded as he mentioned previously this proposal will be constructed in phases. He explained the plan is to raze Arby's, begin construction of the new retail/condo's with merchants vacating existing retail and moving into the new spaces before Phase 2 begins. Mr. Benshoof addressed the Commission and explained the traffic study for the redevelopment at 50th Street and France Avenue. Mr. Benshoof said the plan before the Commission this evening removes the existing entrance driveway on France Avenue and retains the existing exit driveway. The development would be served by the existing exit drive and the existing one-way northbound alley connecting to 51st street, and a new connection to the parking ramp opposite the entrance to the underground parking garage for residents of the condos. Mr. Benshoof explained gates would restrict the connection to the paring ramp with access through this connection only available for residents of the condos. Mr. Benshoof said it is believed the current redevelopment plan would generate fewer trips compared to existing uses and would also generate fewer trips if the alternative development scenario were implemented (50th and France Avenue plan). Commissioner Grabiel asked Mr. Benshoof what would prevent the condo residents from using the alley. Mr. Benshoof said he believes the turning radius may prevent that. Mr. Dick Curtin, 6310 McIntyre, and property owner of the Ampersand building told the Commission he is not opposed to the project but wants the City 3 to carefully examine the proposed development. Mr. Curtin said he has a concern with regard to providing adequate parking, the turn radius and traffic. Mr. Curtin added he is not sure he believes access to the residential element of the proposal is best. Continuing, Mr. Curtin pointed out the layout of the development also appears to convert his sidewalk (north side) to a thoroughfare. He added that sidewalk is maintained by him, and if in the future it is used by residents of the proposed condos who will maintain that sidewalk and what about liability. Chairman Byron asked Mr. Curtin if he believes there is a better alternative to the plans submitted. Mr. Curtin said his first thought was to enter from France Avenue. Commissioner McClelland questioned if that would create a curb cut/sight distance problem. Chair Byron asked Mr. Haugland if he has any response to Mr. Curtin. Mr. Haugland said they could look into the suggestion by Mr. Curtin with regard to France Avenue access, but his first impression is that that would be more dangerous. Mr. Haugland in response to the question regarding the north walkway that they intend to add "Arby's" land to widen it. Mr. Haugland said he has met with Mr. Curtin and is aware of his concerns and will try to address them. Commissioner Losnbury questioned Mr. Benshoof on what he believes is the best access scenario. Mr. Benshoof stated in his opinion the plan presented is best. Commissioner Losnbury asked Mr. Benshoof if another study should be done to determine which approach is best. Mr. Curtin pointed out this proposal is still in preliminary stages with nothing "cast in stone" and told the Commission he still is persuaded parking will not be adequate especially as it relates to guest parking adding Mr. Haugland can also look at different access points. Commissioner Brown asked how often a parking study has been conducted on the ramps. Ms. Aaker told the Commission Planning Staff has conducted a number of parking studies over the years. She added she believes the last study was conducted when renovations were made to the Edina theatre and other retail areas. Mr. Martin Labelle, addressed the Commission and informed them he is a barber in Edina at the northwest intersection of France Avenue and 50th Street. Mr. Labelle said he has a real concern with regard to parking and told the Commission his clients already struggle to find adequate parking spaces. Mr. Labelle questioned if approved as presented where would the retail tenants park? He pointed out street parking on France Avenue is already limited. He stated in his experience the north ramp is heavily used and it isn't uncommon for clients to have to park on the Minneapolis side of the street. 4 Mr. Hosmar Brown, property owner in the area told the Commission he believes the proposal is good and the building is beautiful, but there are bigger issues at work here. He pointed out the 50th and France Avenue retail area used to be a quaint area that now has become an intersection. He said in his experience traffic in this area is already terrible and won't get any better. Mr. Brown said the proposed increase in density can only add to an already difficult traffic situation. Mr. Brown pointed out at 3PM traffic already begins piling up. Mr. Brown acknowledged the ramps are not always full but if the proposed plan eliminates any spaces that presents a problem. Mr. Brown said in his opinion more retail space isn't needed if parking spaces will be decreased, even by a few. Commissioner McClelland commented in her opinion the traffic situation isn't a new problem, and it is possible with better intersection control traffic could be calmed. Mr. Haugland told the Commission he is willing to look into some of the issues pointed out this evening, but informed the Commission there are not a lot of choices available to them. Mr. Haugland said one element that hasn't been mentioned is that Minneapolis doesn't have the ability to provide adequate parking to accommodate their retail and much of their parking needs are met in the City's municipal ramps. Mr. Haugland acknowledged there are a lot of cross over clients between the two cities, but it is a challenge for our side of the street. Mr. Haugland stated he continues to believe pedestrian flow should be encouraged between cities in a safe fashion, noting the parking is what it is. Commissioner Schroeder said if he assumes correctly that the parking plan contained in the 50th and France Avenue plan was based on total build-out, which includes redevelopment of this corner. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. Continuing, Mr. Schroeder said if he understands correctly this plan proposes a reduction of 3 or 4 parking spaces. Ms. Aaker answered that is correct, but pointed out the City's ramps have increased in parking capacity since that plan was drafted. Commissioner Schroeder commented as he views it any parking shortage should not be attributed to this project. He pointed out parking demand and in and outs could be greatly increased if, lets say a Culver's fast- food restaurant would replace Arby's. Ms. Aaker agreed, the 50th and France Avenue plan did include an increase in retail space. Commissioner Fischer asked Ms. Aaker if the City of Minneapolis and Edina communicate. Ms. Aaker responded the City of Minneapolis sends the City of Edina notice of upcoming developments and we do the same. Commissioner Fischer said in his opinion since the 50th and France Avenue plan was designed to include retail build-out the residential aspect of this proposal could be considered an improvement with regard to parking. Commissioner McClelland said agrees with that observation. 5 Commissioner Lonsbury commented it is true a residential element could be considered an improvement, but in his opinion there have been a lot of assumptions made with regard to the City's parking ramps and their capacity. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Aaker if she knows the total parking capacity for the City's ramps. Ms. Aaker responded she believes there were 889 parking spaces located in the ramps prior to the expansion of the north ramp. She pointed out this of course does not include on street parking spaces. Commissioner Brown said that while he has great respect for the developer and believes he will do an excellent job he is concerned the City is working from a plan developed in the 1970's. Chair Byron asked Ms. Aaker if the cost was shared between the City and the retail property owners when the ramps were constructed and added on-to. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. It was a joint venture. Commissioner Grabiel added that at least from his experience, he has always found parking availability in the ramps. Ms. Aaker reiterated Planning Staff took ramp counts a number of times, adding the counts were not prefect but staff findings indicated that usually vacant parking spaces were found on the tops of the ramps. The overall capacity averages during "peak" times were between 65 and 75 percent with 92% percent occupancy during the holidays. Commissioner Schroeder commented while reviewing the plans if it would be possible to move the trash storage area. Mr. Haugland responded in his opinion he doesn't believe that is possible because of the existing City easements. He pointed out that trash area is used by a number of tenants. A discussion ensued between Commission Members with regard to issues on residential parking needs and if it would be possible to allow an area in the ramp for overnight guest or owner parking. It was suggested that some form of sticker be used to identify those vehicles. The discussion continued with Commission Members questioning how the voting should proceed. Should the requested ordinance amendment be handled separately or handled along with the requested Conditional Use Permit. Chair Byron said in his opinion there is no reason to "do one without the other". He pointed out this is a project driven amendment to the zoning ordinance, we all know that, adding he has no problem handling them separately, but both should be acted on. Chair Byron said if handled separately the next question could be do we or do we not proceed on the specific proposal by Mr. Haugland. 6 Commissioner Losnbury moved to recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance adding residential dwelling units as a conditional use in the PCD 1,2, and 3 Districts. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Commissioner Lonsbury stated he believes this is an appropriate action to take and directed attention to #3 of the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Lonsbury said he would like to amend the proposed standards for residential dwelling units to read: "Dwelling units with a floor area of 1,500 feet or less shall provide a minimum of 1.75 fully enclosed parking spaces per unit. Dwelling units exceeding 1,500 square feet shall provide a minimum of 2.5 fully enclosed parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Lonsbury explained his reason for the increase is to ensure adequate parking spaces, especially as it relates to guest parking. Commissioner McClelland said she has to withdraw her second, adding she is uncomfortable with those figures. Commissioner Brown seconded Commissioners Lonsbury's motion for purpose of discussion. Commissioner McClelland stated that while she can agree guest parking is a concern she has difficulty requiring multi-residential facilities to exceed the parking standards required for R-1 properties in the City of Edina. Commissioner Lonsbury stated the Commission is recommending a change to the zoning ordinance, pointing out most R-1 properties in Edina have garages, driveways and access to street parking, which in total is more than 2 parking spaces per dwelling. Commissioner Lonsbury pointed out, at least in this situation, street parking is mostly unheard of. Commissioner Schroeder questioned Commissioner Lonsbury's language statement of fully enclosed parking spaces and inquired if part of the ratio could include unenclosed parking spaces. Commissioner Lonsbury said he has no problem with that suggestion, adding he amends his motion to read - for units over 1,500 square feet 2 fully enclosed spaces and 1/2 unenclosed parking spaces are required. For units under 1,500 square feet 1.5 fully enclosed spaces and'/4-unenclosed spaces are required. Commissioner McClelland stated she still has a problem with that ratio, pointing out the public ramp can be used to accommodate guest parking, etc. Commissioner Grabiel pointed out the proposed changes to the motion would at least at this point scratch this proposal. Commissioner Lonsbury stressed that is not his intent. He stated an amendment to the ordinance is requested and he is addressing by his motion only the proposed changes to the ordinance not the project. Commissioner Lonsbury stated in his opinion the redevelopment proposal before the Commission this evening is a good proposal and if approved the proposed changes to the ordinance amendment would allow the proponents the opportunity to redevelop with variances Chairman Byron said for clarification unless the first motion is amended what is on the table is a motion and a second to amend the ordinance to read — for units over 1,500 square feet 2.5 fully enclosed spaces and for units under 7 1.500 square foot 1.75 fully enclosed spaces. Commissioner Lonsbury withdrew that motion. Commissioner Brown moved to recommend adding residential dwelling units as a conditional use in the PCD-1, 2, and 3 Districts and standards for residential dwelling units # 3 to read. Dwelling units with a floor area of 1,500 square feet or less shall provide a minimum of 1.5 fully enclosed parking spaces per unit and 1/4 unenclosed parking spaces per unit. Dwelling units exceeding 1,500 square feet shall provide a minimum of 2.0 fully enclosed parking spaces per unit and 1/2 unenclosed parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown added his intent is to amend the amended ordinance, and in no way is it directed at this project. Commissioner Grabiel reiterated if the motion before us is adopted what does that do to this proposal. Chair Bryon responded he is not sure and directed that question to Mr. Haug land. Mr. Haug land stated he doesn't believe it is fair to respond to that question. He said in all good faith they can't supply the parking. He pointed out the fully enclosed parking could possibly be met but the unenclosed parking would be impossible to meet. Commissioner Lonsbury said the proposed motion to amend the ordinance doesn't take into consideration the proposal before the Commission this evening or for that matter any future proposals. He added as a city looking at redevelopment he believes it is important that adequate parking is provided, and his intent by this motion is limited to the ordinance amendment. Mr. Haugland said he has no response to the proposed changes to the amendment to the ordinance as stipulated by Commissioners Brown and Lonsbury. Commissioner Byron said if he understands correctly, if adopted, absent the ability of this proposal to obtain variances to comply with the proposed amendment, what is dictated would be required. Mr. Haugland responded the development team would have to go back and re-visit the proposal and look into the possibility of eliminating one floor. Mr. Haugland said he believes in all confidence that won't occur and he would construct all commercial as dictated by the adopted 50th & France commercial area plan. Commissioner Fischer said being new to the Commission he was somewhat surprised Edina had an ordinance prohibiting the mix of commercial with residential. Commissioner Fischer said in his opinion the parking requirements are and should be different in different zones of the city. He said the beauty of mixed use is that guests may arrive at hours businesses are not operating thereby avoiding congestion. Commissioner Fischer added he has a fear with the parking numbers suggested that no development or redevelopment for that matter could achieve those standards. He pointed out Edina is no longer 8 green fields. Commissioner Fischer concluded he may be wrong, but his intuition tells him those numbers are too high, acknowledging he can't tell you that factually. Commissioner Schroeder echoed Commissioner Fischer's comments and stated in his experience the figures Commissioners Lonsbury and Brown are proposing are significantly higher then what most cities are looking at in terms of redevelopment. Commissioner Schroeder pointed out if parking ratios change as recommended this is not the only area in Edina that would have to follow those guidelines. He pointed out Edina is continually looking for opportunities to provide affordable housing He pointed out if burdened with unnecessarily high parking ratios that may limit the ability of the city to redevelop other commercial areas where the square footage of the housing units and price are less then what is proposed this evening. Commissioner Schroeder said it is entirely possible Edinborough would not have been able to be developed under the requirements proposed by Commissioners Brown and Lonsbury. Mr. Haugland told the Commission Mr. Benshoof has been working with developers on two projects in downtown Minneapolis and asked the Commission if they would like to hear how the parking was handled in those instances. Mr. Benshoof addressed the Commission and explained at present he is working with developers on two high rise towers in downtown Minneapolis. Mr. Benshoof explained one project is complete "Grand Park", and the "Carlyle" proposed along the river near the Post Office is not complete. At Grand Park parking requirements are 1.35 spaces per unit regardless of unit size. Mr. Benshoof said the reason the parking requirement of 1.35 is due to the proximity of the development to downtown. It is believed for both projects that residents are people that won't require two vehicles. Many are move down buyers who consolidate to one car and address most of their needs locally on foot. Mr. Benshoof added at the Grand extra parking stalls are available. Mr. Benshoof said the Carlyle requires a larger parking ratio of 1.45 stalls per unit with the same concept - parking is based on unit numbers not size. Concluding, Mr. Benshoof reported he is finishing a project in Maple Grove with a parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit. It is felt in Maple Grove extra parking could be accommodated on the street. Maple Grove also has an ordinance that prohibits on street parking after midnight. Mr. Benshoof stated in his opinion the recommended parking ratio is high, especially for urban infill projects. Commissioner Fisher cautioned against using this project to solve an existing parking problem. He said in his opinion the recommended 2.5 parking stalls (no matter the scale of the project) is the largest he has ever seen in terms of redevelopment. Commissioner Fischer added, and he may be wrong, that many of the perspective buyers will probably be "move down" from within the community that will embrace the near amenities. 9 Chair Byron called for a vote on the amendment to the zoning ordinance. Nays, Schroeder, Fischer, McClelland, Grabiel, Byron. Ayes; Lonsbury, Brown. Motion failed. Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend an amendment to the ordinance adding residential dwelling units as a conditional use in the PCD-1, 2, and 3 districts as indicated by staff. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Ayes; Schroeder, Fischer, McClelland, Grabiel and Byron. Nays, Brown, Lonsbury. Motion carried. Chair Byron said Haugland Companies is before the Commission requesting a Conditional Use Permit and if no further discussion called for a motion. Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit approval subject to final adoption of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, easements as required for building and public utilities and Watershed District Permit(s). Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. Commissioner McClelland said that while she is in support of the proposal she is hesitant to vote on this motion. She added, at least in her opinion, there are still some unanswered questions especially concerning the air and subterranean rights, exit on/off France Avenue and garbage/recycling placement. Commissioner McClelland stated she believes this is a great redevelopment of the corner reiterating she is still hesitant and suggested continuing the hearing until some of issues are better addressed. Commissioner Fischer questioned if this is the only time the Commission as a body will hear this proposal. Chair Byron responded if he understands correctly staff recommends preliminary approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and preliminary approval of the Conditional Use Permit, which indicates this will return to the Commission when everything or nearly everything is in its final form. Commissioner Lonsbury added he agrees with that interpretation. Commissioner Fisher said in his opinion a continuance at this time probably wouldn't change things in the preliminary stages. He added he agrees there are "loose ends" remaining but believes the proponent will resolve those issues. Continuing, Commissioner Fischer pointed out there is always the possibility that tomorrow a similar project could be proposed on the Minneapolis side of France Avenue without any input from the City. He added it is in our favor at this time that the review and approval process is in the hands of the City of Edina. Continuing, Commission Fischer said with all do respect to the business owners regarding parking, that he has never met a business owner that believe they have enough parking and he would be disappointed if business owners said they have enough parking. Commissioner Fischer pointed out in viewing the two 10 aerial photos the top decks of the ramps appear empty. He added he believes there is enough parking to support this project acknowledging that not all spaces could be considered convenient. Concluding, Commissioner Fischer said at this time he believes the submitted proposal is well done and designed with careful consideration. He stated he does not believe there are any reasons to delay this project. Mr. Haugland said, as he understood from planning staff a final plan would need to be presented to the Commission and Council. Mr. Haugland apologized to the Commission for bringing up a number of issues in the preliminary stages that probably shouldn't have been brought up until they were resolved. He added he believes the air and subterranean easements will soon be resolved. Chair Byron told the Commission he has been relatively slow in his own mind in appreciating the mixed-use concept. He added he now better understands the point often made that mixed use is a way to reduce density by mixing uses resulting in a positive impact on traffic and parking while at the same time allowing a property owner the ability to improve their property. Continuing, Chair Byron commented from the discussion this evening and in viewing projects in other communities that a proposal such as this appears to be very attractive to many people. Chair Byron commented when he received his packet containing the request for an amendment change and conditional use permit the first thing he did was drive France Avenue focusing on the southwest corner. Chair Byron added he was struck by the impression that this corner is crying out for redevelopment. He pointed out the age of the structures create the need for change. Chair Byron said the renovation on the Minneapolis (Pinehurst) side of the street appears to be generating redevelopment, which may continue along both sides of France in the future. Chair Byron agreed with observations on traffic congestion and wouldn't consider minimizing the present traffic situation but believes if done correctly this proposal should not exacerbate traffic or parking. Concluding Chair Byron said he supports the proposal. Chair Byron called for the vote recommending approval of a conditional use permit subject to staff conditions: Ayes; Schroeder, Fischer, Grabiel, Brown Lonsbury, Byron. Abstain, McClelland. Motion carried. 11 LD-05-1 Lot Division 6920 Hillside Lane 5524 West 70th Street Ms. Aaker informed the Commission the applicant proposes to transfer a strip of land measuring approximately 5 feet by 124 feet from the lot on Hillside Lane to the rear of the lot at 5524 West 70th Street. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposed lot division would cure the encroachment of a brick patio and shed of the 70th Street house on the property of the house on Hillside Lane. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Ill. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM Commission Secretary 12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2005, 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Geof Workinger, Michael Schroeder, Mike Fischer, John Lonsbury, Stephen Brown and Floyd Grabiel MEMBERS ABSENT: David Byron, David Runyan and Helen McClelland STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the February 23, 2005, meeting minutes. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IL OLD BUSINESS: C-05-1 Conditional Use Permit Haugland Companies Southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 50th St. W. Mr. Larsen told the Commission on March 15, 2005, the City Council approved and granted first reading of a Zoning Ordinance amendment allowing residential use in the Planned Commercial District subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The proponents, Haugland Companies, have now filed plans in support of their request for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the amended Ordinance. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit conditioned on: 1. Final adoption of ordinance amendment 2. Watershed District Permits 3. Developer's Agreement covering utility easements and vacations as required; air and subterranean rights easements; and temporary construction easements. 4. Landscaping bond covering replacement of plant materials and restoration of public walks, drives and fixtures. The proponent, Mr. Gene Haugland was present to respond to questions. Mr. Haugland addressed the Commission and with graphics explained the changes that occurred since the Commission last heard this issue. Mr. Haug land asked the Commission to note the majority of changes occurred on the façade of the proposed building and with the exterior building materials. Mr. Haugland pointed out the exterior materials and building elevation has been refined and in his opinion the change in the building design/facade allows individual units to better take advantage of the views. Concluding Mr. Haugland said fine-tuning still needs to be accomplished with regard to utilities. Commissioner Brown stated if he remembers correctly from our previous meeting that certain sidewalks will be widened. Mr. Haug land responded that is correct, adding the sidewalk along France Avenue will be widened by 3 feet with the sidewalk along West 50th remaining the same. He noted the sidewalk between the Arbys site and Ampersand building will also be widened. Commissioner Losnbury asked Mr. Haugland if there will be a visitor entrance at the rear of the building. Mr. Haugland responded his initial thought is to have visitor access only off France Avenue. Mr. Haugland acknowledged it may be possible that in the future the condo association may desire a rear visitor entrance, but at this time the building will be designed without that. The entrance and exit for visitors will be from France Avenue. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Haugland if the issues with Mr. Curtin (property owner of Ampersand) have been resolved. Mr. Haugland responded he believes they have been resolved. He added discussions are continuing with regard to erecting a canopy over the adjoining walkway and walkway width. Chair Workinger asked Mr. Haug land if any changes were made with regard to guest parking. Mr. Haugland responded the parking element remains the same with no guest parking in the below grade garage. Only residents of the building will park their vehicles in that area. Guest parking would be accommodated in the public ramps or on the public street. Chair Workinger stated he was unable to attend the last Commission meeting when this issue was heard and noted there was some discussion regarding air/subterranean rights and questioned if they have been addressed. 2 Mr. Haugland responded air/subterranean rights will be addressed in the Developer's Agreement and at that time finalized. Chair Workinger questioned if the trash enclosure would remain in the present location. Mr. Haugland said the trash enclosure area will remain in the same location, as it exists today. He explained the majority of the retail tenants use this trash area. He added he believes Lunds has its own trash enclosure area, but due to utility placement the conclusion was to retain the trash area as it presently exists. Chair Workinger questioned if the trash area is secured. Mr. Haugland responded presently the trash area is secured with a code pad for access, and to the best of his knowledge that will remain. Mr. Hosmar Brown, property owner in the 50th 8` France business area, told the Commission he still has difficulty with this proposal. He said he agrees with much of what he sees, but questioned if this is the right location for a redevelopment of this size. He added his main concern is with traffic and traffic congestion. Mr. Brown stated he believes traffic in the area will only increase and this will contribute to that increase. He also added that presently area merchants already complain that their clients have a hard time finding adequate parking; this will clearly exacerbate the issue. Mr. Brown said he also worries about the entrance/exit situation that serves this proposal, pointing out Minnesota has extreme weather conditions. Concluding, Mr. Brown stated he hopes this proposal doesn't end up creating a "canyon like" feel to that corner. Mr. Grabiel moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit approval subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 7-0. A brief discussion ensued with Commissioners touching on some issues that still have an element of concern, one being the roadway system of the area. Mr. Larsen explained the roadway system has been implemented about as far as the City can go. Mr. Larsen noted in this area traffic has always been an issue with changes occurring throughout the years on both sides of France Avenue. III. NEW BUSINESS: C-05-3 Conditional Use Permit Good Samaritan Church 5730 Grove Street Church building expansion Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the applicant is proposing a new addition extending north from the westerly end of the existing church building and 3 a new entry, lobby area adjacent to the east parking lot. No changes to existing parking areas are proposed. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to watershed district permits. Mr. David Knutson, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Timmer were present representing the church. Commissioner Schroeder noted it appears on the landscaping plan that a significant number of large oak trees will be removed with minimal replacement. Mr. Knutson addressed the Commission and explained a letter was mailed to neighbors surrounding the church site inviting them to attend a meeting on November 30, 2004 to view and discuss the proposal. Continuing, in response to Commissioner Schroeder's comment, Mr. Knutson acknowledged that unfortunately a large number of trees will be removed as a result of expansion, but pointed out the site is large with many trees that will not be disturbed as a result of this proposal. A discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement the proposed additions to the church are tastefully done, but voiced concern with landscaping suggesting maybe more should be done with regard to landscaping and maintaining urban forests. Additional landscaping will also soften the addition. Commissioner Schroeder moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit Approval subject to the building plans presented, subject to watershed district permits and subject to replacement of 26 large oak trees with 26 additional trees. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion and requested that approval also be conditioned on matching exterior materials. Commissioner Schroeder said that was his intent and agreed exterior materials should match. Commissioner Brown added he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder's suggestion of requiring additional landscaping. Commissioner Grabiel stated he is hesitant to support the motion as presented. He asked church representatives if they believe there is enough room on site to support the planting of 26 additional trees. Mr. Hamilton responded a landscaping plan was submitted with the intent of adding additional plantings but not to the extent as suggested by Commissioner Schroeder. Continuing, Mr. Hamilton said with regard to exterior building materials that they would match the existing church buildings. Commissioner Grabiel said he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder with regard to tree replacement but is uncomfortable with the recommendation of replacing tree for tree, especially since the church has met landscaping code requirements. 4 Commissioner Schroeder stated he understands Commissioner Grabiel's comments adding he does not know the "correct" number of trees that should be replanted adding the Commission should note Edina is an older community with aging trees and vegetation and when we can the Commission should try to maintain our urban forest. Commissioner Grabiel responded he doesn't disagree with that comment. Chair Workinger asked Mr. Grabiel what approach would make the most sense to him. Commissioner Grabiel suggested that the Commission direct staff to review the existing vegetation keeping in mind what will be removed. He added this subject (landscaping) may need more visibility but having this discussion at this time may not be fair to this applicant especially in light of their compliance with code. Mr. Steve Timmer, church member addressed the Commission and explained to them the building task force agonized over tree removal but after careful consideration came to the conclusion nothing could be done about it because of the proposed placement of the new addition. He stated at this time it would be a hardship for the church to replace tree for tree and asked the Commission to not request tree/tree replacement as a condition of approval. Commissioner Lonsbury stated as he views this the Commission can either act on the motion on the table, deny the request or table this issue until an additional landscaping plan is presented. Mr. Hamilton asked the Commission to note the church has met all requirements set forth by City Code. Commissioner Lonsbury stated he agrees but in his opinion the landscaping plan is not adequate. Commissioner Schroeder explained his intent with his motion was to ensure that additional landscaping is added above what was depicted on the landscaping plan. He added he does not want to tell the church how to achieve this and suggested one possibility could be a youth group activity that would plant seedlings. Commissioner Schroeder said he would love to see the large trees replaced with other large trees acknowledging that is probably not an option. Mr. Larsen interjected adding he believes an option worth considering is to have planning staff walk the site with the City forester and church officials identifying the trees that will be lost as a result of this proposal and requesting if warranted that the church revise their landscaping plan to add additional plantings of undertimed size. Commissioner Schroeder withdrew his previous motion and moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit approval subject to staff conditions, subject 5 to matching exterior building materials and subject to planning staff, the city forester and church officials walking the church site to determine what trees will be removed and agreeing on the amount of replacements trees and vegetation. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Grabiel questioned being new to the Commission Watershed approval. Mr. Larsen responded Watershed approval is triggered by the amount of grading and disruption that will occur on a site as a result of development or redevelopment. The Watershed District reviews plans to ensure that water quality standards are met and to measure the rate of water run-off. S-05-1 The Blake School City of Hopkins West of Blake Road and north of Belmore Lane Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City of Hopkins has agreed to sell a 75-foot wide strip of land to The Blake School. The land extends westerly along the south side of school property for approximately 1,300 feet. The sale is in consideration for land acquired by the City for recent improvements to excelsior Boulevard. The land is in the City of Edina but is owned by the City of Hopkins. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends of the proposed subdivision. The sale will not change the function of the land for public use. The City of Edina has no utilities affected by the sale. Mr. Griffith was present representing Blake School and interested neighbors were also present. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Larsen if this request also triggers a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larsen responded not at this time. He explained if in the future the school decides to use this strip of land for school use they would have to come before the City with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Grabiel asked for clarification on the reason this is being heard by Edina when it is a sale of property. Mr. Larsen explained it is not only a sale of the property but a re-plat of the Blake School property to incorporate this strip of land along with the changes that occurred along Excelsior Boulevard with land taking. Mr. Larsen said both municipalities (Edina, Hopkins) hear this replat. 6 Commissioner Fischer acknowledged this is a very peculiar piece of land and questioned how this strip "came about". Mr. Larsen explained years ago after streetcars became obsolete the streetcar right-of-ways were made available for sale. Some street car right-of-ways were added to individual lots while others were sold. When this strip of right-of-way became available the City of Hopkins purchased it. Chair Workinger questioned who maintains this strip of land. Mr. Larsen responded the City of Hopkins presently maintains the strip of land. Mr. Bill Griffith addressed the Commission and explained Blake School plans to retain the strip of land as it exists today. He explained the strip of land borders the south property line of the Blake School campus and the City of Hopkins has agreed to sell this strip to the school to offset the taking of Blake School property when Excelsior Boulevard was redesigned. Mr. Bob Anthony, 301 Griffith, told the Commission he has a concern not so much with this strip of land, but the larger piece of land recently purchased by Blake School. Mr. Anthony said his concern is with paragraph 4 of Exhibit B, which mentions landscaped area, playing fields, and sidewalks, and questioned if that reference is for the strip of land (subject property) or for the residential property Blake School purchased called "Blake Heights". Chair Workinger interjected and asked Mr. Larsen if any building could occur on this strip of land. Mr. Larsen responded probably not. He pointed out if any changes were to be made to the strip of land or any other piece of land in Edina owned by Blake School the Blake School would have to appear before the Commission and Council with a Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Griffth said when the land purchase agreement was drafted it was believed the strip of land was in the City of Hopkins. Continuing, Mr. Griffith pointed out the strip of land in question is replatted as an Outlot and Outlots, at least to the best of his knowledge, are considered unbuildable in the City of Edina. Mr. Larsen acknowledged there might be some confusion with regard to this request. He explained to the Commission Mr. Anthony in his letter is also referring to five replatted residential lots on Griffit that received Commission and Council approval a couple years ago. At that time approval was granted to allow construction of five new single-family homes. Recently the developer and owner of the plat known as "Blake Heights" sold the 5-lot plat to Blake School. After purchase The Blake School withdrew the five-lot residential plat with the understanding if they want to develop this land in any other way they would have to appear before the Commission and Council to do so. Mr. Larsen stressed future use or redevelopment of this strip of land or other land in Edina owned by Blake School is not a matter before the Commission at this time. 7 Mr. Stevens, 304 Dearborn Street told the Commission his concern is that vehicles or buses would drive on that strip of land. Chair Workinger commented if he understands correctly, at least at this point in time any change to the strip of land would require hearings before both the Commission and Council. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct, adding Blake School is aware of that requirement. Mr. Larsen also noted schools and their activities are permitted conditional uses in the R-1 residential zoning district. Mr. Griffith stated it is not the intent of Blake School to use this strip of land as an alley. He reiterated the strip of land will be maintained in its present state. Mr. Buzz Jonason told the Commission at present he is considering purchasing a property on Dearborn Court, adding he is worried about the potential for future school expansion noting he has no idea what the intention of the school actually is. Mr. Jonason said this strip of land grants them (Blake School) direct access to their residential lots in Edina. Ms. Guandrrame, 302 Dearborn, told the Commission Blake is a very noisy school with activities going on at all hours, adding with the school encroaching further into Edina and closer to her property that she doesn't feel safe. A resident at 305 Harrison told the Commission she wants to echo what her neighbors have been saying this evening, which is, their concern that the school appears to be encroaching further into their residential neighborhood. Commissioner Fischer moved to recommend division approval subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. Commissioner Fischer noted in his experience most trail way systems have agreements in place that protect their use as trail ways and questioned if this trail way has such an agreement. Mr. Larsen responded to the best of his knowledge, this "path" does not have such an agreement. He said the replatting as an Outlot prevents building on the site or change in its present use. Commissioner Brown commented this appears confusing and asked where the jurisdiction actually lies. Mr. Larsen said at this time jurisdiction is with both municipalities, but if the use of this Outlot changes only the City of Edina would be involved. Mr. Larsen said this evening the Commission is only being requested to recommend approval of a replat. Mr. Larsen added staff has recommended approval with no knowledge on what, if anything, The Blake School plans to do with this Outlot or with their other property in Edina in the future. 8 Commissioner Grabiel said it appears to him, at least at this time, the proposal before the Commission this evening is for a replat of a 17-foot wide strip of land by adding it to the Blake School property. The Outlot designation of the strip of land prevents the Blake School from changing its use without first coming before the Commission and Council. Mr. Grabiel noted the Blake School has been at this location for many years. Chair Workinger called for the vote. All voted aye; motion carried. C-05-2 City of Edina/ISD # 273 Edina Community Center and Southview Campus Proposal to construct two (2) gyms Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of two new gymnasiums on the campus. One gym is attached to the Community Center, and the other added to Southview Middle School. Mr. Larsen explained the City Council and Edina School Board held a joint public hearing on November 26, 2004. Following that hearing each body voted to proceed and enter into a joint use agreement with the new facilities paid for by the City. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to watershed district permits. Mr. Rozeboom, project architect was present to respond to questions. Mr. John Keprios was present representing the City of Edina. Mr. Rozeboom addressed the Commission and with the aide of graphics pointed out to the Commission the locations of the proposed gyms, greenspace and traffic circulation patterns. Mr. Rozeboom pointed out one aspect of the project is that school district users can move between the Community Center/Middle School and the new gyms internally. This flow makes the "joint use" component of the project work well. Mr. Keprios explained the need for additional gyms resulted from the growth and desire of the City's recreational user groups for more gym space. Continuing, Mr. Keprios told the Commission over the past decade the City along with the user groups has had an ongoing discussion on how to provide additional gym space to meet the demands of growing "house" leagues. Mr. Keprios said different sites were looked at to achieve more gym space, one being the Northwest Racquet site, which did not work out. Concluding Mr. Keprios noted 9 traffic congestion will be eased when events are not scheduled simultaneously, and the school district and user groups are mindful of this. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Keprios whom the user groups would schedule their activities with. Mr. Keprios responded user groups would continue to schedule activities through City offices. Commissioner Brown asked if user fees would be increased as a result of construction of the new gyms. Mr. Keprios responded user fees would be increased with hourly fees set by the district and a one-time yearly fee set by the City. Ms. Friedman, 6612 Sally Lane, addressed the Commission and informed them the EGAA is very happy with the proposed new gyms. She explained house league sports continue to grow and any traffic generated is usually not that intense. She pointed out most user groups car-pool, which reduces the number of vehicles coming and going. She pointed out house league activities usually do not meet on weekends except during championship games, which occur a couple times a year. Concluding, Ms. Friedman said she believes the addition of two new gyms is a wonderful asset for Edina's youth and the entire community. Commissioner Brown moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit Approval. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Fischer told the Commission he believes the re-design of the campus along with the placement of the two new gyms may actually improve the existing situation, and reduce impact to the neighborhood. LD-05-2 Brad Colehour 5516-5520 France Avenue South Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponent is seeking a party wall lot division to facilitate separate ownership for each unit. Mr. Larsen explained the property does not have the required separate utility connections. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said proponent has applied to the Edina Construction Board to gain a waiver from the requirement. Mr. Larsen concluded approval of the division is subject to a waiver from the Construction Board of appeals to maintain the existing utility service. Commissioner Brown moved lot division approval subject to the proponent obtaining a waiver from the Edina Construction Board. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 10 LD-05-3 Robert and Rebecca Prasclunas 6016-6020 Berne Circle Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponents are requesting a party wall lot division of an existing double bungalow. Mr. Larsen stated the property meets all requirements for division with separate utilities provided. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends party wall lot division approval. Commissioner Lonsbury moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: Jackie Hoogenakker 11