Loading...
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