HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 08-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
Wednesday, August 2, 1978, at 7:30 p.m.
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
I. Approval of the June 28, 1978, Minutes.
II. Old Business:
Z-78-7 Braemar Assoc. R-1 Single Family District.to PRD -3 Planned
Residential District. Generally located on the north corner
of West 78th Street and Cahill Road.
III. New Business:
LD -78-6 Lot Division. Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason's Fif th. Addition.
Generally located south of _Vernon Avenue and west of Gleason
Road.
LD -78-7 Lot Division. Part of Lot 45, Auditor's Subdivision No.
172. Generally located at 5020 France Avenue South.
Z-78-8 The Kerr Companies. R-1 Single Family District to 0-2 Office
District. Generally located at 4917 Eden Avenue.
Z-78-9 Gittleman Corporation. R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3
Planned Residential District. Generally located at the
southwest quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road.
IV. Adjournment.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1978, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Wm. Lewis, Chairman, R. Seaberg, D. Johnson, G. Johnson, H.
McClelland, D. Runyan, J. Bentley, S. Hughes, and L. Fernelius.
Staff Present: G. Hughes, Planning Director, F. Hoffman, City Engineer, H.
Sand, Assistant Planner, N. Rust, Secretary, and J. Teichert,
Secretary.
I. Approval of the June 28, 1978, Minutes.
Mr. S. Hughes moved the minutes of the June 28, 1978, Com-
munity Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved as submitted.
Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
II. Old Business:
Z-78-7 Braemar Assoc. R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3
Planned Residential District. Generally located on
the northwest corner of West 78th Street and Cahill Rd.
Mr. G. Hughes explained this request was continued from the
June 28, 1978, weeting to allow the proponent time to consider alternative
roadway plans for the site. He said the original proposal contained 50 town-
house units with access points from Delaney Boulevard and Cahill Road. Per the
Commission's request, the proponent has since reduced the number of townhouses
on the site to 41 and.conformed more to the topography of the site. He said at
the June meeting, the Commission was concerned with the south access road being
too close to the intersection of Cahill Road and West 78th Street and requested
changes be made in the street alignment.
Mr. G. Hughes said the proponent has since returned with re-
vised plans for 41 townhouse units and the easterly access point was shifted
north from the intersection of 78th Street and Cahill Road 180 feet. Also, the
north townhouse units were redesigned to change the straight line appearance
present in previous plans. He further said the building in the southwest portion
of the site was shifted to better conform with the topography of the hillside as
compared to the previous location. Mr. G. Hughes said there were stakes out on
the site designating proposed roadway and building locations. Mr.. G. Hughes
felt this plan had come a long way in answering the concerns of the Commission
and staff. He said staff is still concerned to a certain extent that townhouses
would not be the best use for this site due to the topography and location;
however, staff respects the owner's desire to pursue this type of development.
He said staff continues to question the extent of grading and .tree removal
necessary to facilitate this type of plan. Mr. G. Hughes said staff is at the
point where they will recommend preliminary approval of the proposal which was,
in concept, for the number of units, style of development, and arrangement of
the roadways and buildings. He said quite a bit of work would have to be done
on the plans prior to submission of final plans on this site for which the
following should be considered:
1. Accurate topography for the site must be provided.
2. Complete grading and utility plans and all other materials required for final
approval will be very essential in this case to review effects of the proposal.
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 2
3. Unit 17'appears to have access difficulties and is very close to the antici-
pated roadway to Delaney Boulevard. This unit should be eliminated.
4. Units 6 through 17 -would be more appropriately arranged in two 5 to 6 unit
buildings rather than in one 12 -unit building.
5. Units 38 through 41 and possibly units 1 through 5 should be decreased in
length somewhat to reduce encroachment into the ponding area.
In response to Mr. Fernelius, Mr. Jack Barron, the proponent,
said they would be able to save more trees than they originally anticipated.
He said with the buildings constructed on the lower portion of the site, it
would take more work to make them buildable. This was also true on the northern
portion of the site. In response to Mr. D. Johnson, Mr. Barron said they would
be able to save 50 percent of the trees on the site. In response to Ms. McClelland,
Mr. Barron said the first floor elevation was approximately 844. Discussion
followed regarding walk-ins to the units with Mr. Barron saying he felt walk-ins
were more acceptable to people.
Mr. G. Johnson moved for approval of the rezoning request sub-
ject to the restrictions stated in the staff report. Mr. Fernelius seconded the
motion.
Mr. Seaberg asked if Mr. G. Johnson meant, for instance, units
6 through 17 should be divided into two buildings rather than the one.
Mr. Runyan said he could not really say that but that 41
units can be on this site.
Mr. G. Hughes said the items listed in the staff report were
due to problemsof:the site which he felt should be addressed. If the problems
could be taken care of in the final plans without applying each item, that would
be acceptable. Mr. Barron said he had no objection to removing Unit 17 but
he did have objections to making the units smaller. Upon voting, all voted aye.
Motion carried.
III. New Business:
LD -78-6 Lot Division. Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason's Fifth Addi-
tion. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and
west of Gleason Road.
Mr. G. Hughes explained to the Commission that the proponents
requested a party wall lot division to split their double bungalow lot into two
halves. He added that individual sewer and water connections had been installed
for each unit.
Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the lot division. Ms. McClelland
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 3
LD -78-7 Lot Division. Part of Lot 45, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 172. Generally located at 5020 France Ave. So.
Mr. G. Hughes told the Commission the subject property was
the Red Barn located on 50th and France and was included in the Redevelopment
Project. He said the City had acquired a portion of the Red Barn property in
this area for the prupose of constructing a service alley. Mr. G. Hughes
explained a lot division was required for tax purposes. He said staff recommended
approval of the requested lot division.
Mr. Runyan asked what would happen to the parking when this
area was changed into a service alley. Mr. G. Hughes replied that seven stalls
would be lost. He said at present, the parking is clock -wise, but he proposed
the parking be changed to counter -clockwise and explained tentatively how the
staff had planned it would go. He added that bays would be set up for parking
semis.
In respone to Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. G. Hughes said they went
over in detail the loss of parking because of the proposal and the HRA's conclu-
sion was there would be enough public parking stalls and public ramps to adequately
cover the area. He said the seven parking stalls which would be lost are definite-
ly used at the present time; however, the packing ramps would compensate for this
loss. The other thing Mr. G. Hughes felt should be pointed out was that a new
building would be built on the Red Barn site in the future to which they would
lose thirty total spaces.
In response to Mr. D. Johnson, Mr. G. Hughes said there did exist
a police problem wherein someone may become confused and drive up the wrong way
on the one way service alley. Another point Mr. G. Hughes made was that traffic
could not enter the parking lot or ramp from the service area which discouraged
people from using the alley as a short cut.
Ms. McClelland wondered if trucks would block the alley up at
any time. Mr. G. Hughes replied they would not. He felt the traffic would
flow through.
Mr. Fernelius moved for approval of the lot division. Mr.
Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Z-78-8 The Kerr Companies. R-1 Single Family District to 0-2
Office District. Generally located at 4917 Eden Ave.
Mr. G. Hughes explained the property in question was located
immediately south of Perkins Restaurant. He said the Commission should recall
that three to four years ago, Perkins rezoned a portion of the parcel to APD,
Automobile Parking District, with the intention of rezoning the remainder to
Commercial use. He said it was a long and triangular shaped piece of property
the size of which was slightly in excess of three acres.
Mr. G. Hughes said this parcel of property had had several
multiple residential rezoning requests in past years. In 1969, the City Council
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 4
gave first reading for R-5,Multiple Residential District, zoning for a substan-
tial 14 -story apartment building on the site. Second reading was later denied
as the building was increased in height to 20 stories. He said other proposals
on the site included a proposal for 260 residential units.
Mr. G. Hughes said he believed that from a development stand-
point, there are some problems with the. site. It is very long and triangular
in shape making the south end of the site unusable. The site also has rather
serious soil problems.
Mr. G. Hughes then said that from a residential standpoint,
it is extremely close to Highway 100 and therefore has a noise problem. tie said
the site is also devoid of any natural amenities.
Mr. G. Hughes said the present request is to rezone the site
from R-1 Single Family District to 0-2 Office District Zone. He said the pro-
ponents were not required to submit any type of plans by the Zoning Ordinance,
but staff asked them to submit some concept plans to assist the Commission in
their evaluation of the site. He said the proposed building would be approximately
five stories in height. From the elevation standpoint, conceptual plans for the
north and south elevations of the building as well as the east elevation were
prepared. There was also a large surface parking lot proposed for the site.
Mr. G. Hughes explained from an ordinance standpoint, the
difference between 0-1 and 0-2 Office Districts is very small. The difference
centers around the height of the building. 0-1 allows a maximum of four stories
while 0-2 has no specified height limitation but is regulated by required
setbacks from property lines. He felt due to the piece of property in question,
the height of the proposed office would be limited to five stories. He then
referred to a traffic analysis of the area prepared by Bather-Ringrose-Wolsfeld.
Mr. G. Hughes said the report indicated the building would generate approximately
1100 trip ends per day. Mr. G. Hughes said staff agreed the number of trip ends
generated by the proposed office was approximately 1100 which approximates the
trip generation of the 260 multiple residential dwelling which had preliminary
approval in 1970 by the City Council. He said staff disagreed with the traffic
analysis in that they did not agree 90 percent of the generated traffic would use
Highway 100 and the remaining 10 percent would ise adjacent side streets, such
as Vernon Avenue and West 50th Street. Staff felt the only time Edina residents
would use Highway 100 would be if they lived south of W. 70th Street.
Mr. G. Hughes said staff therefore felt office use was the
most appropriate use for the site. He pointed out, however, that office use
would generate more traffic than would a residential use. He felt it would not
be difficult to accommodate the additional traffic due to the vicinity of Highway
100 and arterial streets. He felt 0-2 was a more appropriate use than 0-1 due to
the soil problems and the configuration of the site, making a higher building
justified. Mr. G. Hughes wished the Commission to recognize variances would be
required to develop the property and recommended the Board of Appeals and Adjust-
ments look favorably upon building setback variances. However, staff would
discourage reacting favorably upon variances from the standpoint of utilization
of the site such as parking requirement variances or FAR variances which deal
with the intensity of the site rather than the configuration of the site.
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 5
Mr. Bob Martinson, of Kerr Companies, was present as well as
Mr. Dick Wolsfeld of Bather-Ringrose-Wolsfeld. He said the construction should
begin late in 1979. He then proceeded to show a model of the proposed develop-
ment. Mr. Runyan asked the height of the Eden 5100 building. Mr. Martinson
responded that it was only three stories, but because it was situated higher
it was the equivalent of five stories.
Mr. B. Martinson said that Perkins had an approximate elevation
of 930 and the Eden 5100 building had an approximate elevation of 982. The pro-
posed office would have a similar elevation of the Eden 5100 building.
Mr. S. Hughes said there would be a problem with excessive
traffic on West 50th Street. Mr. Wolsfeld said they weretalking about 10 percent
of 1100 vehciles which would be on that street and other residential streets in
the same area. Also, in doing the traffic analysis, they always consider
the worst possible situation; therefore, they took in more than 100 trip ends
because they took a higher approach volume. Therefore, they are looking at
an additional 50 to 100 trip ends to the existing 12000 on West 50th Street.
The same number of people would be leaving for.work in the morning so that number
wuld not change substantially. He said 55 percent -.of the traffic would come
from the north, 35 percent would come from the south, and 10 percent would come
from the immediate area and use local arterial_ streets. He emphasized the majority
of those going to the site would use Highway 100. He also felt it would be
difficult to perceive any real traffic change.
Mr. Lewis said he was opposed to any extension of commercializa-
tion in the area.
Mr. Runyan said he felt the visual impact of this proposal in
comparison with the multiple housing project was similar and that the proposed
use was a much better one. Mr. S. Hughes said the visual aspect of the project
did not bother him but rather the traffic did.
Mr. G. Hughes said the problem they see is what are the options
on the site from a residential standpoint as it was a problem site based on
the excessive noise from Highway 100. He felt it was undesirable for Commercial
use. Also, if the site was used for Planned Industrial, it would probably be
used for offices. Therefore, office use was the most desirable and tends to
be the best use of the site.
In response to Mr. Fernelius' concern about the intersection at
Eden Avenue and Willson Road, Mr. Fran Hoffman, the City Engineer, said they
may eventually have to substitute traffic signals for the existing 4 -way stop
signs.
Mr. D. Johnson asked about the use of the office building saying
medical use induced a great deal of traffic in and out of the site. Mr. B.
Martinson said they would not be considering a medical office building
because it did generate a great deal of traffic. He proceeded to point out
residential areas also generated traffic and asked if the land use was always
compatible with the traffic volume. He said the same number of people would
be going to work each day and the only additional traffic would be created by
those coming from such locations as Bloomington, of which they would not use
residential roads. He felt the capacity of the street system was not a problem.
Minutes of thet8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 6
In response to Ms. McClelland, Mr. G. Hughes said based on
five spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area, the proposal would require
approximately 350 parking spaces. Mr. Martinson said they had not determined
the exact number of spaces they could achieve but felt it was close to 350.
Mr. G. Hughes clarified that the next step for the proponent,
if the rezoning was approved, is for them to go to the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments with a request for setback variances. He pointed out he was
opposed to variances which relate to the intensity of the use rather than site,
conditions. Mr. G. Hughes continued he felt it was logical for setback' variances
to be considered on the property because it would be difficult, due to the shape
of the site, for the building to maintain adequate setbacks from all property
lines. He said such issues as off- and on -street parking were items which would
have to be worked out.
Mr. Runyan noted there was a golf course across the street,
and, because of the open land, it limited the encroachment the proposed
development would have on other properties. He felt the proposal was a good
one. He felt the impact was only minor and they should give the proponent some
direction.
Mr. G. Hughes said the Commission was not approving the
building but rather the use of the property, and the building would have to
conform to the ordinance.
Mr. Lewis said he felt the residents in the area would be
violently opposed to the proposed development and felt the residents should be
notified and heard. Mr. Runyan said the neighbors would be notified when the
request reached the City Council and would have a chance to be heard at that
time if they were not at the meeting tonight. Mr. G. Hughes said that in the
case of hearings by the City Council, surrounding property owners within 500
feet were notified ten days prior to the hearing. In this case, however, because
the closest residential area was more than 500 feet away, they would have to
send to a larger radius of residents. Mr. Fernelius moved for approval of the
rezoning request. Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the following
voted:
Ayes: Ms. McClelland, Mr. D. Johnson, Mr. Seaberg, Mr. Fernelius, Mr. Runyan,
and Mr. Bentley.
Nays: Mr. Lewis, Mr. S. Hughes, Mr. G. Johnson.
Motion carried.
Z-78-9 Gittleman Corporation. R-1 Single Family District to
PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located
at the southwest quadrant of Chaill Road and Dewey
Hill Road.
Mr. G. Hughes explained the subject property was a 24 acre
tract of land located at Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. He said some
Commission members should recall that in 1973 a proposed rezoning to PRD -3
was actually approved for first reading by the City Council for 276 units by
Condor Corporation. This proposal was then withdrawn after first reading.
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 7
He continued a second proposal was brought in in' 1975 again for 276 units in
two -five story buildings. Both the Planning Commission and City Council denied
the rezoning request. He said the issue did go to court and the City Council
decision for denial was upheld. Mr. G. Hughes stated that the present request
was again for a rezoning from R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned
Residential District. He said the total number of units on the site was re-
duced dramatically from previous proposals. The present proposal is for
159 units as compared teprevious
andproposals
reductionfor
plan adoptedand
byrelates
Citywell
to the southwest Edina
LandUse
Council.
Mr. G. Hughes explained the access to the development as
shown on the plans was from two different points. First, the access was from
Dewey Hill Road in the northeast portion of the subdivision and the second
access is from Delaney Boulevard on the southwest portion of the site. He said
ponds were constructed approximately one year ago and would be retained.
Mr. G. Hughes said staff believed the proponents had done an
excellent job in responding to many past concerns and stated the following:
1. The total number of units has been reduced from 276 to 159. The proposed
density of 7 units per acre is below the densities preliminarily approved
for two other multiple residential developments in Southwest Edina.
2. Building height has been reduced from five stories to three stories in con-
formance with the Southwest Edina Plan.
3. The proposed buildings have been located primarily on the eastern portion
of the site to provide a buffer for single family homes to the west.
4. Surface parking has been located away from the ponding areas and is well
hidden from properties to the west.
5. The access road to Dewey Hill Road is located as far as possible from single
family residences and maintains an adequate distance from Cahill Road/
Dewey Hill Road intersection. The access road to Delaney Road is located
as far south as possible to eliminate the possibility of headlights shining
into homes on Coventry Way, to avoid encroachment into ponding areas, and
to provide adequate sight distance for Delaney Boulevard. The internal
roadway system is also designed to discourage through traffic.
6. The steep slopes located on the southwesterly portion of the site are pre-
served and should provide an excellent buffer.
7. The internal roadway system is designed to facilitate the future inclusion
of the five acre parcel which fronts on Cahill Road and is not controlled
by the proponents.
Mr. G. Hughes said staff therefore recommended preliminary
approval of the rezoning request but pointed out the following items which
staff felt should be considered:
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 8
1. Adequate sight distance must be maintained at the intersection of Cahill Road
and Dewey Hill Road. Sight distance is presently a problem at this inter-
section.
2. The surface parking lot northeast of building No. 3 should be modified
slightly to further facilitate the future incorporation, if warranted,
of the easterly parcel not owned by the proponent.
3. Signage for the development must be in conformance with the sign ordinance.
4. Final zoning is contingent upon the final platting of the property.
Mr. M. Gittleman, the proponent, showed a site plan depicting
what was proposed for the subject property and said a correction should be noted
that they would provide 250 rather than 200 parking stalls. He said the density
of the site would be 7 units per acre. 71.5 percent of the site would remain
as green area. He said one building would be -called Dewey Hill West, a second
building Dewey Hill North, and a third building Dewey Hill South. There would
be a total of 105 one -bedroom and den units and 54 two-bedroom and den units.
The buildings would be three stories in height and have underground parking.
ITe said he had had at least eight meetings with Foster Green who owned the parcel
of property adjacent to the subject property and found out the Green prope-•-ty
was subject to life estate in favor of Mr. Green's mother, who was presently
confined to a nursing home. Mr. Green had indicated to him it had been his
father's wish that the entire parcel, both the Green and Gittleman parcels,
be rejoined at one time. If they were to come into title of the Green property
they would be back before the Planning Commission and City Council to redo the
area of that plan. They would revise the roadway system and construct one
smaller building on the Green site. The same number of units would be maintained
per acre and adequate parking would be provided. Mr. Gittleman then showed
a drawing showing the contours of the property, showing the plan maintained a
large part of the high spot of the site. He also presented a grading plan,
showing there would not be excessive grading. Mr. Gittleman said they had sent
out approximately 35 to 40 letters to all the neighbors in the immediate area
for which the list was obtained from Mr. G. Hughes, City Planner, explaining
this request would be heard this evening and there was application for a rezoning
pending before the Planning Commission and also sent exact copies of the plans
submitted to Mr. G. Hughes. This letter invited the neighbors to call and meet
with him to allow him to respond to any questions. Mr. Gittleman said he had met
with representatives of the neighborhood group west of the property and to
the best of his knowledge that group appeared pleased with the proposal. The
names of these individuals who represented the group are Mr. Arnold Foote, 7411
Coventry Way, and Mr. Garfield Lovaas, 7409 Coventry Way.
Mr. Gittleman proceeded to show the garage plan of Building
No. 1 which had a total of 94 underground parking stalls and surface parking
for 45 cars. He said there was also a health club area and explained the building
layout. He said the buildings were of primarily brick materials and had very
little wood. He said a great deal of funds would be allocated for landscaping
and said the units would not be renter -occupied and would be for people without
pets or children under the age of 17. The price range for the units was between
$85,000 and $105,000 for which finances would be arranged with 1st National Bank
of Minneapolis. He said he expected the development to comply with all fire and
safety codes and felt the development would complement the area. He referred
to a similar project in Bloomington which lie had done and was going well.
Minutes of the 8-2-78 CD and PC Meeting
Page 9
In response to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Gittleman said they would
provide retaining walls around the site which would be recessed down and
would do high berming to protect the houses on the west side of which area
was almost totally built up. He said there was 250 feet between the homes
on the west side and Delaney Boulevard. He said the highest point in the
elevation was an elevation of 870. Mr. G. Hughes said the top of the buildings
would be 8 to 10 feet higher than the hill.
Mr. Jerry Boch, 7415 Coventry Way, said he had spoken
against Delaney Boulevard at a previous City Council meeting and had less of
an objection to the development than to Delaney. He felt access to Delaney
should be eliminated as it would be an expensive road to construct.
Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, said the Delaney Boulevard
had been in the Southwest Edina Land Use Plan for seven years and explained the
history of the road saying the previously proposed Amundson Avenue would not be
put in at this time and said when people bought homes in this area, they were
aware of the proposed road.
In response to Mr. Boch's question about how to go about re-
turning the City Council's decision, Mr. G. Hughes said many meetings had been
held on the subject and he felt it would be very difficult to change the City
Council's decision.
Mr. Garfield Lovaas was present and said he and Mr. Arnold
Foote did meet with Mr. Gittleman on behalf of some of the neighbors west of
Delaney Boulevard and said their primary concern was the parking lot. However,
Mr. Gittleman had said it would be bermed to conceal it. He commented he felt
Mr. Gittleman had done a nice job on his proposal and said Mr. Foote had been
to see the City Engineer to see if the road could be moved east as.it was on
their properties. He realized, however, it could not be changed.
Mr. Gittleman said he would meet with anyone when he came in
with the final plans and would go over the landscaping and grading plans.
-In response to a resident, Mr. G. Hughes said the road would have to work
around the existing pond when it was put in as it was on street right-of-way
property rather t;►an on the property owner's land.
Mr. S. Hughes moved for approval of the rezoning request for
the reasons stated in the staff report and with the considerations stated by
staff in regard to the final plans. Mr. D. Johnson seconded the motion. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
IV.
Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
1/42 y
Nancy J. Rust, Secretary