HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 02-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1975
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D. T. Runyan, F. S. Dean,
C. E. Johnson, G. V. Johnson, and R. E. Kremer.
Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner; R. Dunn, City Engineer; and L. Nye,
Secretary.
I. Approval of the January 29, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes.
A motion to approve the January 29, 1975, Planning Commission minutes as
written was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. C. Johnson. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
II. REZONINGS:
Z-74-12 Lowry Hill Enterprises, Inc. Generally located at the southwest
corner of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. R-1 Single Family
Residence District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District.
Mr. Luce recalled the requested 276 unit, five story apartment development
.was contnued.from the January 29, 1975, Planning Commission meeting for further
consideration of the quality and scale of the overall proposal versus the general
scale of the whole area. He reviewed the land use and design limitations and
transportation element of the Southwest Edina Plan, and clarified the development
concept requested is inconsistent with that plan only in terms of the proposed
five story building heights. Mr. Luce noted the EQC reviewed the request and has
recommended it be approved because the reduced land coverage would minimize the
site impact and result in greater preservation of the hill and lowlands.
Mr. Dennis Madden, the real estate broker representing Lowry Hill Enterprises,
reviewed his presentation made at the 1-29-75 Planning Commission meeting. He noted
that five story buildings are requested because of the site contours and soil
characteristics, and, because Minnesota allows a sizeable tax advantage for Type 1
construction, the maintenance and tax factors will be lower in the long run. Mr.
Tom Moore of Cooperman and Associates, the architects, presented and explained the
general project layout, elevations, and individual units. He presented slides
illustrating various perspectives of the buildings from different neighborhood
locations.
Discussion followed regarding the existing and anticipated traffic patterns,
the advantages, disadvantages, quality and desirability of three story wood versus
five story concrete construction, and the points of view of the investors/developers,
the residents, and the City staff. Mrs. O'Connor, 5704 Dewey Hill Road, Mr. Bill
Howard, 5808 Dewey Hill Road, Mr. Edward Norbut, 7312 Schey Drive, Mr. Earl Bolick,
5700 Dewey Hill Road, Charlotte Burns, 5820 Dewey Hill Road, and Rachel James,
6001 Dewey Hill Road, objected to any proposal exceeding the established three
story height limitation because any infringement would deteriorate the area and set
a precedent for additional five story multiple residential,development. Charlotte
Burns presented a petition signed by several neighborhood residents opposed to the
requested rezoning. Ms. Dorothy Krekelberg, one.of the proponents, responded that
Lowry Hill "wants to build something that is quality, and would not build a three
story wood frame building because you can't put the type of quality in it that we
want". Mr. Madden added that a three story project would use more land and require
X
2-26-75 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
more cut and fill. Mr. Luce stated the City feels the proposal is advantageous
in terms of the fireproof construction and the visibility and environmental impacts.
Mr. Runyan stated that although the developer's reasons for wanting to
build a higher building are probably valid, he feels the height and overall scale
of the proposed apartment buildings would be incompatible with the scale of the
existing single family neighborhood.
Mr. Hughes observed the Lowry Hill development proposal would be located
immediately adjacent to an industrial area and will be somewhat isolated from the
west by Delaney Boulevard, would provide a durable, fire resistant type of
construction, would mean less land coverage and therefore more open space, and
has had the blessing of the EQC. He stated that those factors would influence
him to recommend a change in the Southwest Edina Plan to allow the Lowry Hill
proposal on the particular site in question, but clarified that that in no way is
to set a precedent for other PRD -5 zoning in this area or elsewhere. Mr. Lewis
agreed.
Mr. Dean stated that a five story apartment building is entirely inappro-
priate for the area and is inconsistent with the single family neighborhood as
well as the height concept of the industrial area to the east. He felt a
precedent for additional five story buildings to the north or west would result.
Following further discussion, Mr. Dean moved the Lowry Hill proposal be
denied because: it is not in accordance with the Southwest Edina Plan; because of
the obvious opposition of the area residents; and because of the possible precedence
for the property immediately to the north and west. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion.
,Upon roll call Messrs. Dean, Runyan, and Kremer voted aye; Messrs. Lewis, C.
Johnson, and Hughes voted nay. Mr. G. Johnson abstained due to a possible conflict
of interest.
Mr. Hughes moved the concept be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the
motion. Upon roll call, Messrs. Lewis, Hughes, and C. Johnson voted aye; Messrs.
Runyan, Kremer, and Dean voted nay. Mr. G. Johnson again abstained due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Because the tie vote could not be resolved, Mr. Dean moved to defer the
matter to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. Kremer seconded
the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. G. Johnson indicated he would
attempt to resolve any conflict of interest by that time.
A motion to hold the next Planning Commission meeting on April 9th was made
by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mr. C. Johnson; both the motion and second were
withdrawn, however, after further discussion. Mr. G. Johnson moved the next
regular Planning Commission meeting be held on March 26th, with the Lowry Hill
matter held over until April 30, 1975. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Northwest Bloomington Plan.
2-26-75 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
Mr. G. Johnson abstained from all discussion because of a conflict of
interest.
Mr. Luce explained that Mr. Melvin Gittleman has asked.the City of
Bloomington to rezone six lots south of Braemar Park from freeway development to
multiple residential; five buildings of five to nine stories would be constructed
at 14.89 units per acre. The City of Bloomington asked for an opinion from the
City of Edina, and a letter was written on February 18, 1975, outlining Edina's
concerns as the inadequate westbound 494 freeway access, the questionable capacity
of the sewer and water utilities to serve a multiple residential population of
this magnitude rather than the office use earlier projected, and the proximity,
character, and compatibility of any development to the passive, generally isolated
Braemar Park use.
After discussion, Mr. Hughes moved a resolution (attached) be transmitted
to the City of Bloomington from the Edina Planning Commission reiterating Edina's
concerns about the Nine Mile Creek floodplain, the transportation, sewer and water
systems, and the compatibility factor, and indicating that Edina would prefer a
lower density multiple residential development at five or fewer stories. Mr. C.
Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
2. April 2, 1975, Planning Commission Meeting Date Change to March 26, 1975.
Mr. Hughes made a motion earlier that "the next regular Planning Commission
meeting be held on March 26, 1975 (instead of April 2, 1975) Mr. C. Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary
I
2-27-75
GL:ln
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the City of Bloomington has asked the Planning Commission of the
City of Edina to review a proposed development north of Highway 494 and
south of Braemar Park in Edina, that review to include the land use as
it affects Braemar Park, the utility, road and other functional systems,
and the precedence it may establish for other properties in that ir.mediate
vicinity, and
WHEREAS the' City of Edina has no planned developments greater than 12
units per acre, nor higher than 5 stories, west of Highway 100, and
WHEREAS the City of Edina has acquired approximately 575 acres for
recreational uses, within which the user may enjoy a recreational
activity in a passive setting, and
WHEREAS, with a dependence on the Southwest Edina Plan and the Northwest
Bloomington Plan, Edina has made certain commitments to its utility
systems, including a dependence on the flood plain for Nine Mile Creek
as a water storage area as well as a natural amenity,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission for the City
of Edina communicate these facts to the City of Bloomington, including
a request that the development proposal under immediate consideration be
denied; that recommendation of denial is based on:
1. Utilities to serve this area for this use do not exist in the City of
Edina, however, utilities do exist to serve lower land uses, including
freeway development or lower density multiple.
2. The degree of encroachment into the Nine Mile Creek flood plain is not
necessary.
3. The height of the buildings is inappropriate for the area in general
and is specifically inappropriate due to its proximity to the Braemar
recreational complex. It is impossible to design a passive nine story
building. Edina would favor a building using passive materials at five
or less stories.
4. Without a completed transportation system or a firm action program to
complete that transportation system, the street system in this area
would not be capable of, nor is it designed to handle, the kind of
traffic that would be generated by this development or further
developments of a similar nature.