Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 05-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. - EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg Members Absent: Leonard Fernelius, Mary McDonald Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works and Engineering; Judy Teichert, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes James Bentley moved that the Minutes of the March 28, 1979, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. New Business: Z-79-1 Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family District to 0-1 Office District. Asking the Commission to recall that it had reviewed several proposals for a townhouse development on the subject property during the past year, Gordon Hughes indicated that on August 2, 1978, the Commission recommended preliminary approval of a plan for 41 townhouse units on the site. He continued that although this plan subsequently received preliminary approval by the City Council, following the approval, soil investigations revealed that the central portion of the site exhibited very unstable soil conditions. Based upon this investigation, Mr. Hughes noted the proponent submitted a revised site plan which relocated the townhouse units to the perimeter of the site. However, the Planning Commission denied this plan and requested that the proponent prepare a revised plan. Gordon Hughes explained that the proponents have now submitted a request to rezone the property to 0-1 Office District and propose a 69,000 square foot multi -tenant office building for the site. He also stated that the building would have a maximum height of three stories and would offer both con- ventional office space as well as townhouse offices. In accordance with ordinance requirements, Mr. Hughes said 326 parking stalls would be provided with 151 parking stalls to be located under the office building and 175 exposed parking stalls to be constructed on the central portion of the site. Staff felt that from a preliminary standpoint, the proposed office building appears to comply with the standards imposed by the "office" section of the zoning ordinance. Gordon Hughes noted, however, that the Southwest Edina Plan, drafted in 1969, delineated industrial uses for that area between Cahill Road Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 2 and Delaney Boulevard, the area in which the subject property is located. He continued that in 1969-70 this proposed plan was strenuously debated by residents and property owners in southwest Edina, the primary issue being the proposed industrial land uses west of Cahill Road. Mr. Hughes indicated that nearly all the residents who voiced an opinion at that time were very opposed to industrial uses west of Cahill Road which prompted the City Council, following numerous hearings, to amend the proposed plan by deleting all industrial uses west of Cahill Road and north of 78th Street and specify residential uses in this area. Staff agreed that the subject property exhibits several con- straints to development such as poor soils, unusual topography, and frontage on collector streets; however, staff submitted that these constraints do not preclude the use of the subject property for residential purposes. Staff also submitted that several other properties in southwest Edina exhibit similar constraints and could be influenced to seek similar rezonings. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning to 0-1 Office District for the following reasons: that the request in inconsistent and in conflict with the Southwest Edina Plan; that residents in southwest Edina have relied upon the Southwest Edina Plan and its concept that non-residential uses would not be allowed west of Cahill Road; that Cahill Road and 78th Street form a logical and reasonable dividing line between residential and industrial office uses; that•the proposed use would especially impact the multiple residence immediately to the north which was recently converted to owner occupied condominiums; and that the requested rezoning could -establish a precedent for similar rezonings of properties fronting on Cahill Road or 78th Street. Gordon Hughes introduced Jack Barron, Arthur G. Haglund, and Gene Nieland who were present to answer the Commission's questions. Jack Barron showed the Commission several slides of the piece of property from various angles to illustrate to them why he felt the proposed office complex would be the best plan for the site. Mr. Barron pointed out that the 41 townhouse units that were previously approved would destroy more trees, would occupy more of the area, and would create more traffic than the proposed office complex. He continued that the office building proposed would have no children in it to play near the busy street, and there would be no traffic on weekends or holidays or after 6 p.m. on weekdays, but would contain a high professional level of renters such as attorneys and architects. In response to Mr. Runyan's question as to the expected oc- cupancy load of the building, Jack Barron replied that he felt it would be considerably lower than a regular office building due to high rental costs and top quality professionals he intended to rent office space to. Mr. Barron also showed the Commission a new product he planned to use to resolve the peat problem. After a general discussion on the product, Chairman Lewis opened the floor for neighbors to speak. Richard Petschauer of 7520 Cahill Road informed the Commission that a collective position had not been taken on behalf of the Windwood Condo- minium owners but he was concerned that an office building in this location would affect the value of their property. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 3 Jewell Hiscock of 7520 Cahill Road noted that while Mr. Barron had spoken to a few of the Windwood Condominium owners and was very kind to do that, she would not have invested in a condominium if she had known that an office building might be built. Bob Brandon of 7520 Cahill Road pointed out that Jack Barron had met with about 30 of the approximately 200 condominium owners to explain his proposal, and Mr. Brandon asked that the proposal be continued for one month so that all of the Windwood owners could be informed and a collective position taken. Dr. James Roger Fox of 7510 Cahill Road told the Commission that he was sold on the development because he felt that an office building would be the best use for that location other than if the City turned down all zoning and made it into a park which would be unrealistic. Helen McClelland compared the number of trip generations in a 41 townhouse unit development with an office building, and Gordon Hughes clari- fied that the staff figures eight or nine trips per unit for townhouses or about 380 trips per day for the 41 unit development and 12 to 14 trips per thousand square feet for office which would result in an increased number of trips. Dick Seaberg asked if any of the neighbors were present that were concerned about the industrial use in this area when the Southwest Edina plan was made. Mr. Hughes replied that no notice of hearing is sent to sur- rounding property owners for the Planning Commission meetings, and he was not sure if any of these neighbors were aware of Mr. Barron's new proposal. Gordon Johnson moved that the rezoning request be continued for one month. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the .request was continued to the May 30, 1979 meeting. Z-79-2 The Habitat. R-1 Single Family District to and R-2 Two Family District S-79-5 The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Drive. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, measuring 7.75 acres in size and located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway, is bordered on the south and west by Lincoln Drive, on the north by Edina West Condominiums, and the east by a vacant parcel which abutts Fountainwoods Apartments. Mr. Hughes recalled that several rezoning requests have been considered for this property in past years, and on two occasions commercial zoning requests were denied for this property due to inconsistency with the Western Edina Plan. In 1976, a rezoning request to PRD -3 for the subject property and other properties in the area received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council, which Mr. Hughes noted proposed 90 patio home units, approximately 50 of which were located on the subject property. However, Gordon Hughes stated the proponent of •the plan did not pursue the rezoning following preliminary approval. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 4 Gordon Hughes indicated that the subject property, characterized by rolling topography on the easterly and westerly portions, has a wetland located in the central portion of the site which has been classified as a "public water" by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and therefore will require permits prior to its alteration. Mr. Hughes also noted that due to its proximity to County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway, the site is subjected to relatively high noise levels. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the proponents are requesting a rezoning to R-2 Two Family Dwelling District as well as a 15 lot subdivision for the site with four lots to front and have direct access to Lincoln Drive.He continued that two common driveways, each serving two of these lots, would be provided in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on Lincoln Drive, and the remainder of the lots would be served by two short cul-de-sacs. Mr. Hughes also informed the Commission that the wetland in the central portion of the site would be excavated, altered in shape, and utilized for storm water storage and that water fowl nesting islands would be constructed in the pond, and a scenic easement provided around its perimeter. He stated that he had met with John Dickson of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Rent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist, who saw a few problems with the plan in that the DNR wet- lands should not be filled for subdivision purposes. In recognizing the desirable features of the proposal, Gordon Hughes said the density of the project, about four units per acre, is in conform- ance with Council policy concerning residential density reduction;.the wetland on the site would be preserved to a much greater extent as compared to previous proposals and could be properly used for storm water ponding; the provision of nesting islands and the scenic easement would lessen the impact of the wetland alteration. Some of the less desirable features Mr. Hughes noted were that first the topography of the site would be better utilized by a plan calling for clustered housing; second that the four curb cuts the plan proposes would result in some sight distance problems; third, the four lots fronting on Lincoln Drive could not be adequately buffered from freeway noise; fourth; the oblique inter- section of Vernon Court West with Vernon Avenue would produce difficult turning movements. Staff recommended that the proponents prepare modifications to the plan that would relocate Vernon Court West to lessen its oblique orienta- tion with Vernon Avenue and provide a better orientation of the four lots fronting on Lincoln Drive to lessen the impact of freeway noise. Finally, staff recommended the Commission continue the request for one month to enable the DNR to more closely examine the proposal and work with staff concerning the problems in the plan. Gordon Hughes introduced Frank Cardarelle, Rudy Trones, and Wally Irwin who were present to answer the Commission's questions regarding the proposal. Gordon Johnson requested an abstention on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Edina Community Development and,Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 5 Frank Cardarelle showed the Commission the most recent proposal for the Habitat and noted that while they needed plan approval from the Hennepin County Highway Department, the Department of Natural Resources, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, the Planning Commission and City Council, he felt that everyone was generally favorable toward the plan and preliminary concept approval should be granted. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the DNR did have some problems with the plan that would have to be worked out. Del Johnson asked how much power the DNR holds and if they would have the ultimate decision as to approval of the plan•. Frank Cardarelle explained that he felt they were improving the natural habitat so subject to some changes, the preliminary concept should be approved. He added that if the natural habitat can be improved enough they would be allowed to do some filling. In response to David Runyan's question as to how far the dwellings would be from Lincoln Drive, Mr. Cardarelle responded they would be thirty feet from the property line to the building. Mr. Dever, Director of Edina West Condominiums, noted that Mr. Cardarelle had presented the plan request to the Edina West Condominium owners but only a handful of the 162 owners were present. However, he continued that those present found the proposal very desirable for the area and thought it was a definite improvement if approval is granted in something of the form of the present proposal. Bob Peterson of Edina West Condominiums was concerned with the -,problem of the intersection, and Mr. Cardarelle responded that the intersection could be changed and yet the same concept kept intact. Richard Seaberg moved the Commission continue the request for one month to work out more of the problems with the proposal. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye with Gordon Johnson abstaining. The motion to continue the request carried. Z-79-3 Don Berg Construction Company. R-1 Single Family and District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. S-79-6 Generally located north of the Crosstown Highway and west of the M & N Railroad Tracks. Gordon Hughes indicated the subject property, two acnes in area, is bordered on the north by Valley View Road and on the south by the Crosstown Highway; west of the subject property is a developed single family lot, and to the west of this lot is an undeveloped tract of land similar to the subject property. Mr. Hughes stated the Western Edina Plan recognized that the subject property as well as the two parcels to the west represented a transitional area between the Crosstown Highway and single family homes to the north, and therefore designated the area for low density attached housing. He continued that according to the plan, such areas could accomodate single family cluster housing, two family dwellings, townhouses, and apartments at a density of zero to four units per acre. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 6 Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property exhibits several constraints for development in that the property abutts and is sub- stantially lower than the Crosstown Highway, and is subject to relatively high noise levels. Also, the eastern half of the property is approximately 15 feet lower than Valley View Road which makes a conventional development with single family or two family dwellings fronting on Valley View Road very difficult to do without extensive filling. Finally staff felt that due to the dimensions of the property and its topography, it would be difficult to construct a cul-de-sac serving individual lots. Gordon Hughes noted the proponent is requesting a rezoning of the subject property to PRD -2 Planned Residential District and proposes to con- struct two six-plex buildings on the site which would be oriented in a north - south direction to lessen the impact of the Crosstown Highway and reduce the exposure of the buildings to the single family homes to the north. He stated that access to the development would be by way of a private drive from Valley View Road with eight enclosed garage stalls and four exposed garage stalls being provided for each building, which is in conformance with ordinance re quirements. Mr. Hughes pointed out that all the setbacks proposed for the buildings comply with ordinance requirements. Staff felt that the proponent had proposed a development plan which recognized the constraints of the property, oriented the buildings so as to lessen the impacts of the Crosstown Highway, and proposed access to the development to take advantage of the site's topography and preclude the necessity for excessive filling. Gordon Hughes indicated several aspects of the proposed development which would lessen its impact on the single family dwellings on the north side of._Valley View Road included the north -south orientation of the buildings to produce a less obtrusive visual impact as compared to other possible orientations, design features including sloping roofs and conventional building materials similar to and compatible with single family homes in the area, and, due to the topography of the site the depression of the buildings from Valley. View Road making them less visible to the dwellings to the north. Ideally, the staff felt the subject property together with the two parcels to the west could best be developed as one planned residential development. However, Mr. Hughes cited that because the lot immediately to the west is already developed with a single family dwelling, such a comprehensive development plan would be difficult to require. Due to the low density nature of the area and adequate access, staff believed that each parcel could reasonably be developed independently but advised that according to the Western Edina Land Use. Plan the subject property should contain a. maximum of four units per acre rather than the six units per acre requested. Therefore, staff recommended the Commission should consider the possibility of requiring two four-plex buildings rather than two six-plex buildings in approving the preliminary zoning and subdivision with the following conditions: that final zoning be conditioned on final platting, that a subdivision dedication be made, that an executed developers agreement be received, and that a grading permit be issued from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 7 Gordon Hughes introduced Don Berg, the proponent, who was present to answer the Commission's questions. Mr..Berg stated that he had talked with some of the neighbors and had received some favorable feedback on his proposed development. He also said he felt the development would benefit the entire community and would blend in well with the area. Shirley Stoddart of 6227 Westridge Boulevard pointed out that while she thought the development plan was nice, she was concerned about the dangerous corner at Valley View Road, and felt if 20 additional cars were added on the site, a serious traffic problem would develop. She also stated that she would rather see a four-plex developed on the site than the six-plex requested. Raymond E. O'Shaughnessy, 6308 Valley View Road, indicated that when he purchased his property the zoning for the site was R-1, and he wished it to remain that way. Dave L. Mona of 6328 Valley View Road indicated that his property is the low spot in the area, and his concern was that the additional surface area on the site would cause flooding or increased run-off onto his property. Therefore, he requested that he be considered when the Engineering and Planning Departments consider the ponding in the area. Mr. Marion Van Someren of 6317 Valley View Road stated that previously the land on either side of his lot had been vacant and now 'to suddenly have six families living 55 feet from his lot line did not appeal to him. He indicated that he had talked with Mr. Berg to see if the proposed six- plexes could be moved over 15 feet to save more of the trees and give him more space, and Mr. Berg said he would not object if the Planning Commission found that acceptable. In response to Jim Bentley's question as to whether there was ever a water or drainage problem on that site, Mr. Van Someren replied they had never had a drainage problem. Mr. Berg also replied that there was good natural drainage on the site. - Richard Seaberg asked Mr. Berg if he would be willing to go with two four-plexes rather than two six-plexes as had been requested. Mr. Berg answered that while he would rather have two six-plexes, he could also work with two four-plexes. James E. Voss of 6300 Valley View Road stated he would rather see the property remain zoned single family. David Runyan explained to him that with the property dimensions, five single family homes could be placed on that site which would create additional driveways. Gordon Hughes added that from the zoning standpoint there would be no problem for Mr. Berg to put five single family homes on the site; however, he felt there would be topographical problems and access problems. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 8 Richard Seaberg felt that Mr. Berg had done a good job of using the established topography and also considering the neighbors in his plan but he felt that the Commission could only allow two four-plexes on the site. Therefore based on the information staff had presented, he moved that the Commission approve preliminary zoning and platting with the conditions that final rezoning be conditioned upon final platting, that a subdivision dedication be made, that an executed developers agreement be received, that a grading permit be issued from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and that the plans be limited to two four-plex units. Del Johnson'seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Z-79-4 Radisson South Amendment Plan. PC -2 Planned Commercial Plan Amendment. Gordon Hughes recommended the Commission continue this matter for one month based on the proponent's request. David Runyan moved that the matter be continued. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the request was continued to the May 30, 1979 meeting. LD -79-5 Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition. Gordon Hughes explained that a two family dwelling is presently under construction on the subject property, and that the proponent is requesting a simple lot division to divide the property along the common party wall. He also noted that independent sewer and water connections are being provided for each unit. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the simple lot division. Gordon Johnson moved that the simple lot division be approved based on staff recommendation. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the lot division was approved. III. Other Business: Election of the 1979 officers for the Community Development and Planning Commission, which had been continued from the previous meeting, was held at this time. Gordon Johnson nominated Bill Lewis for the position of Chairman of the Planning Commission. Del Johnson seconded the motion. Bill Lewis was elected as the 1979 Chairman of the Community Development and Planning Commission by unanimous ballot. Richard Seaberg nominated Gordon Johnson for the position of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. David Runyan seconded the motion. Gordon Johnson was elected as the 1979 Vice Chairman of the Community Develop- ment and Planning Commission by unanimous ballot. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 9 IV. Next Meeting Date: May 30, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment: 9 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 9-eLr .Y4.1c Judy .Teichert, Secretary