Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 06-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg Members Absent: Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson Staff Presents Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Judy Teichert, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes David Runyan moved that the minutes of the May 30, 1979, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Old Business: Z-79-1 Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family District to 0-1 Office District. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that this rezoning proposal to 0-1 Office was continued from the May 2, 1979, meeting at which time the Commission requested that planning staff notify residents of Southwest Edina of the proposal due to its inconsistency with the Southwest Edina Plan. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that residents of the area had been notified, and he also attended a meeting of the Windwoods Condominium Association in regard to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Hughes introduced Jack Barron who presented his comments as representative of the proponents. Morris Levin, representative of the Windwood Homeowner's Association, voiced their concern that traffic would become a serious problem, their property values would depreciate, and owners along the south side would view a commercial facility and vehicles. They felt that if the property was rezoned a serious precedent would be set. Mr. Levin presented a petition signed by 203 occupants of the Windwood Condominiums of which 196 owners were represented. Darrell H. Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive who was involved in the preparation of the Southwest Edina Plan remembered a fifty-fifty split of opinion as to whether industrial buildings should be put on the western side of Cahill Road at the time the plan was formulated. He stated that he felt this office proposal was done in good taste and would be more desirable than townhouses or condominiums. In response to Mary McDonald's question as to what other properties are left to be developed on the west side of Cahill Road, Gordon Hughes indicated several that could possibly be affected by the precedent set if the plan was changed. David Runyan asked Jack Barron if he had any information as to how the mass of the proposed office building from the ground plane to the highest Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 2 point on the roof would relate to the townhouses that were approved as earlier proposed. Mr. Barron replied that in mass as compared to the townhouses it covers by far less square footage of the land area, in mass is smaller than the Windwood Condominiums, and in height less than 20 percent of the proposed office building is higher than Windwood. When asked why he did not go with the townhouses, Mr. Barron recalled the peat and unstable soil conditions of the lot, and also stated he felt an office building was more appropriate to the area. Mr. James C. Tankenoff of 7510 Cahill Road pointed out that the Windwood Homeowners Association is in its ad hoc stages which may have accounted for the lack of response at the meeting with Mr. Barron. He also commented that the rent cost for office space would be considerably better than for townhouses on that site. Mr. Levin spoke again on behalf of the Windwood Homeowner's Association and their opposition to the project and noted Mr. Dick Craven's name appears 36 times on the petition in opposition to the.project because he is the developer and owns.36 of the units. Lorraine Rothwood from the Windwood Condominiums stated she felt Mr. Barron's proposal was definitely setting an undesirable precedent. Cindy Hiscock, also of the Windwood Condominiums, voiced her concern that they would be sandwiched in with office buildings on both sides of the condominiums. Ann Danahy of the Windwood Condominiums stated that her condo- minium was purchased with the understanding that the land next to it would be developed as residential. David Runyan commented that he felt the proposal would not be setting a precedent leading to the Windwood Condominiums being sandwiched between two commercial uses. He noted that many of the trees could be left -,in -tact with this office proposal, the office building would be further away from Windwoods than a series of townhouses, and there would be no traffic on evenings, weekends, and holidays; he continued that the ground cover would be less with an office building, the height would not be taller than the townhouse development previously approved, and the industrial development already existing to the east and south of the site all made the office proposal look pretty positive from a planning point of view. Mr. Levin asked Mr. Runyan if the Commission could guarantee that there would not be another commercial complex to the north of the Windwoods. Mr. Runyan answered that the Commission could not absolutely guarantee that. Richard Seaberg pointed out that there was no question in his - mind about the quality of the structure proposed to be built. However, he pointed out that there does exist a Southwest Edina Plan and he did not feel any overriding reasons had been brought out as to why the plan should be changed. Mr. Seaberg then moved that the Commission deny the approval of rezoning the property to 0-1 Office District. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye with David Runyan voting nay; the motion of denial carried. Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 3 Z-79-2 The Habitat. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 and Two Family District. S-79-5 The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Drive. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that the subject rezoning and subdivision were considered by the Commission on May 2, 1979, at which time the proponent was asked to review the plans with the Department of Natural Resources due to the proposed encroachment into the wetlands on the site. He continued that based upon discussions with the DNR, the proponent has submitted new plans which have been sent to the Commission for their review. Mr. Hughes indicated that the revised plan varies from the original plan in several respects. First he noted that Vernon Court West has been relocated to provide a better orientation with Vernon Avenue. Second, the four lots fronting on Roushar Road have been eliminated and all lots would be served by the new streets. Third, Mr. Hughes continued the encroachment into the wetland on the site has been reduced. He also explained that this wetland would continue to be used for a storm water ponding area. Staff believed that the proponent responded very favorably to the concerns expressed at the May 2, 1979, meeting. Gordon Hughes observed that the relocation of Vernon Court West, the elimination of the lots fronting on Roushar Road, and the reduced wetland encroachment result in a much improved plan. However, of particular concern to staff is access to the vacant parcel located easterly of the subject property. If this parcel is ultimately developed for R-2 uses, staff felt that Vernon Court West should be extended to serve this parcel, but if this parcel is developed for other types of multiple residences, a separate drive and curb cut may be appropriate. As an interim solution, staff suggested that an appropriate number of the proposed lots should be designated as an outlot to allow the future extension of Vernon Court West if warranted. The Engineering Department noted that the curve where Vernon Avenue joins Roushar Road has been a problem since the road was constructed, and staff recommended that right-of-way should be dedicated over the southeasterly portion of Lot 14 to allow the future re -alignment of this road. Gordon Hughes indicated.that this dedication would have a maximum width of about 18 feet. Staff also submitted that several lots do not satisfy the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size specified by ordinance and appropriate adjustments should be made to reduce the problem rather than seek a variance. Gordon Hughes also noted that due to the wetland constraints of the site, several lots would have to be developed with fairly small dwellings as compared to many double bungalows in the city. Staff clarified that approval of this plat would not imply that variances would be granted for the dwellings outlined by building footprints on the preliminary plat. Staff recommended preliminary approval of the plat with the following conditions: Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 4 1) final zoning is conditioned on final platting 2) an executed developer's agreement 3) subdivision dedication 4) a detailed storm sewer plan must be approved by the City, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Hennepin County prior to final approval 5.) an executed scenic and open space easement for the pond and surrounding area as shown on the proponent's plan 6) no driveway access.to Roushar Road 7) a grading permit from the Watershed District 8) a permit from the DNR allowing alteration of the wetland Gordon Hughes introduced Frank Cardarelle who was present to answer the Commission's questions on behalf of the proponents. Mr. Cardarelle stated he did not think there were any great problems with the plan: he felt they could comply with all the conditions that staff recommended. He did note, however, that the property to the east is in foreclosure and at that time no one had control of the property. He also added that they had no intention of asking for any variances, and .all the buildings would be architecturally set out. In reply to Richard Seaberg's question of how much property was located to the east, Mr. Cardarelle stated there was 195 feet. Len Fernelius moved the Commission grant preliminary approval of the plan subject to the conditions which follow: 1) final zoning is conditioned upon final platting 2) an executed developer's agreement 3) subdivision dedication 4) a detailed storm sewer plan must be approved by the City, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Hennepin County prior to final approval 5) an executed scenic and open space easement for the pond and surrounding area as shown on the proponent's plan 6) no driveway access to Roushar Road 7) a grading permit from the Watershed District 8) a permit from the DNR allowing alteration of the wetland Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 5 Z-79-3 Don Berg Construction Company. R-1 Single Family and District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. 5-79-6 Don Berg Construction Company. Generally located north of the Crosstown Highway and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield, and Southern Railway Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that the subject rezoning and subdivision were considered at the May 2, 1979, meeting at which time the Commission recommended preliminary approval provided that two proposed six-plex buildings be replaced with two four-plex buildings. He observed that such a modification would bring the proposal into conformance with the Western Edina Plan which designates the site for low density attached residential housing at a density of zero to four units per acre. Mr. Hughes noted that the proponent was in agreement with this requested modification. The City Council then reviewed the proposal at its May 21, 1979, meeting. Mr. Hughes reported that the Council referred the proposal back to the Commission and requested that it consider the development of a maximum of four units on the subject property rather than eight units as requested, which would result in a density of two units per acre. Staff met with Mr. Berg following the May 21, 1979, meeting. Gordon Hughes indicated that Mr. Berg wished to pursue the plan as approved by the Commission, i.e. two four -unit buildings. Therefore, Mr. Hughes introduced Mr. Berg to present additional information in support of his request. Mr. Berg submitted that with 400 feet of land he felt he should be entitled to more than two units or two doubles on the site. He elaborated that he had bought the land with the intention of building on it and using it in the future after he retires from work. John A. Cattin of 6223 Westridge Boulevard presented a formal petition signed by 54 families or 92 individuals who are opposed to the development. Bill Lewis asked Gordon Hughes what the Western Edina Plan said for that particular site. Mr. Hughes replied it showed zero to four units of low density attached housing. Mrs. Donald Berg stated they had lived in the neighborhood for 21 years, and certainly would like to build to bring the value of the neighborhood up, not down. She pointed out that if they were required to put single family homes on the site, more of the trees would be removed than with the present plan; also with one driveway to the development rather than several single family driveways, much of the traffic congestion on Valley View Road would be alleviated. Gordon Hughes reported to the Commission that the Council was not opposing this particular style of development, but rather had some question over the total number of units to be constructed. Raymond E. O'Shaughnessy of 6308 Valley View Road questioned the actual size of the site. It was confirmed that the site is actually two acres in size. Mr. O'Shaughnessy also brought out the issue of the density reduction plan which Mr. Hughes clarified was meant to reduce higher apartment densities, not necessarily small developments. Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 6 Mr. Berg pointed out that there was enough acreage on the site for four double bungalows, but his. requested four-plex buildings would cover less area with the additional fact that the buildings would be built in such a fashion to look like one very deluxe large home. He also commented that he has had a sign erected for about ten years which reads "Townhouse Sites for Sale". Len Fernelius moved approval of the proposal for two four-plex buildings on the site. David Runyan seconded that motion. Mr. Marion Van Someren of 6317 Valley View Road commented that as the owner of the single family home located on the west side of the site, he had no guarantees that the Bergs would not develop the property and then sell it. Richard Seaberg pointed out that at the previous Commission meeting it was discussed to move the buildings to the east. Mr. Berg suggested that he would apply for a variance to move both buildings to the east closer to the strip of undevelopable land owned by the City to create a 75 or 80 foot set- back from Mr. Van Someren's property. Gordon Hughes indicated that the suggestion was feasible as the easement will probably always be retained by the City for drainage purposes. Len Fernelius amended his motion to include the study of the possible use of the easement for moving the buildings to the east, further from Mr. Van Someren's property. David Runyan seconded that amendment to the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried to allow Mr. Berg to build two four-plex buildings on the site and further investigate the possibility of moving the buildings closer to the easement. III. New Business: Release of Declaration of Restrictions on Fabri-Tek, Registered Land Survey No. 1145. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property which measures about 30 acres, was rezoned to PID, Planned Industrial District in 1965. He indicated that at that time, the City Council and residents of the area were concerned with the proximity of the industrial zoning to residential properties as well as the inability to control the future intensification of the property with other industrial development. Therefore, the City Council required that Fabri-Tek provide protective covenants in favor of the City which stated that the subject property would be considered as a single parcel and not be leased, conveyed, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered except as a single parcel. He observed that these covenants precluded the subdivision of the subject property as well as the leasing of a portion of the building on the property. Gordon Hughes noted that Fabri-Tek was now requesting that the. City release in entirity the covenants imposed upon their property in 1965 to allow the possibility of subdividing the subject property and/or leasing a portion of the building. Staff pointed out that the subject property is located in somewhat of a transitional area from a land use standpoint: to the east is the Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 7 Nine Mile Creek Corridor, to the north is the Londonderry townhouses, and to the south is a vacant parcel and Edina West Condominiums. While in the past the Commission has indicated that the vacant parcel to the south should be developed for residential purposes, staff has indicated to prospective developers that this vacant parcel could possibly be used for a single tenant, high quality, corporate -headquarters type of a development which would be compatible with sur- rounding land uses. Gordon Hughes observed that the protective covenants impose more restrictive standards than contained in the zoning ordinance; however, he submitted that this is a very transitional area which deserves more restrictive standards. He continued that the further subdivision of the subject property and development of a mini -industrial park would not be beneficial to surrounding properties and could encourage a similar development on the vacant parcel to the south. From a land use standpoint, however, he felt the use of the building on the property for two or three major tenants would probably not unduly impact the area. Thus, staff supported the modification of the protective covenants which would allow occupancy of the building on the property by a maximum of two tenants. Staff could not support any modifications which would allow the subdivi- sion of the subject property. In conjunction with the request, staff believes that it would be appropriate to dedicate to the City Tract B of the subject property at this time. The dedication was recommended for three reasons: 1) The protective covenants do not allow development of this property. 2) Tract B lies almost entirely within the flood plain. 3) Dedication of this parcel would complete a public corridor along Nine Mile Creek from County ,,Road 18 to West 70th Street. Gordon Hughes introduced Malcolm Reid who was present representing Fabri-Tek. Mr. Reid stated Fabri-Tek had no need for the 100,000 square foot building, and the 22 acre site was too large for the building which made it difficult to sell. Recently, he explained, Honeywell has been interested in renting half of Fabri-Tek's building which coincides with the amount of space Fabri-Tek would not be using. Therefore, they were requesting the restrictions be released. Mr. Reid observed that the covenants entered into in 1965 run for 30 years, so eventually the land would be freed up. He also stated that Fabri-Tek felt that staff recom- mendation that Tract B be dedicated was somewhat heavy handed because the property would be of great value to the property owner as it adds to the whole square footage of the area, provides a buffer to the property, is of aesthetic value to the property, and in any appraisal of the property it would add significant value. Mr. Reid also pointed out that at the time the property was rezoned they were asked to give up Tract C. Mr. Reid introduced Mr. M. F. Michelson, president of Fabri-Tek, who recalled the origination of the protective covenants in 1965. Helen McClelland Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 8 wondered who owned tracts D and E, and Gordon Hughes replied that UMET, a real estate investment trust, owned both tracts. David Runyan asked Mr. Hughes how much of Tract B fell into the flood plain to which Mr. Hughes replied that roughly about 75 to 80 percent is in the flood plain. Gordon Hughes also indicated that in the future it may be attempted to develop a public corridor the length of Nine Mile Creek. He suggested that the Commission consider requiring a scenic easement over the property to protect it from development but would allow the corridor development. Mr. Reid again objected to the dedication of Tract B and stated that he felt their request was relatively minor as they were not requesting subdivision, rezoning or anything major. Helen McClelland suggested the Commission do something about the tenancy without tampering with the section that prohibits the subdivision of the tract. Malcolm Reid responded that Fabri-Tek would be satisfied if they were allowed to permit two tenants for their building. David Runyan commented that he did not feel that would be a problem as that would not increase the parking area, the building size, or the number of people. Bill Lewis also felt they should be required to give a scenic easement 100 feet from the center line of the creek. Mr. Michelson responded that if they were required to grant an easement, Tracts D and E should be adjusted appropriately. Mary McDonald moved that the Commission approve only the release of the restriction to allow Fabri-Tek to have more than one tenant with the condition that a 100 foot corridor scenic easement be granted along the Nine Mile Creek. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. S-79-9 Fairchild's Prospect Hills. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Antrim Road. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject -property is a 60,240 square foot single family lot with a single family dwelling located on the central portion of the site fronting on West 70th Street. Mr. Hughes continued that the proponent is requesting a subdivision of the subject property in order to create one new buildable lot which would measure 80 feet by 238 feet and 19,200 square feet in area. He also noted that a 41,040 square foot lot would be retained for the existing single family dwelling. Gordon Hughes recalled that Prospect Hills was originally platted in the late 1940's into 15 lots which ranged in size from about 30,000 square feet to 411 acres. He indicated, however, that most lots were one to lz acres in size which is similar to the subject property. Noting that since the original platting many of the Prospect Hills lots have been further subdivided, Gordon Hughes stated that the approximate area of these new lots range from 18.000 square feet to 30,000 square feet with widths that range from 100 to 150 feet. In the review of the proposed subdivision of Prospect Hills as well as other subdivisions such as Rolling Green, staff has been primarily concerned with the preservation of the "large lot" character of these areas, and addressed the Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 9 issue of the spacing and symmetry of dwellings in such areas rather than the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. In the past, Mr. Hughes observed that staff supported subdivisions of Prospect Hills lots that insured the generous spacing of dwellings, provided relatively spacious yard areas, and did not detract from the symmetry and character of the area. Staff believed that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with these goals, and therefore could not recommend approval of the subdivision for the following reasons: 1) It is apparent that the subject property was originally developed and intended as a single building site. This is evidenced by the central location of the existing dwelling, the location of drives and parking areas, and the location of terraces, landscaping, and a swimming pool. This swimming pool would not conform to required setbacks from the new lot line. 2) The proposed lot width would be 20 feet narrower than the narrowest lot in Prospect Hills. Therefore, a dwelling constructed on the new lot would appear crowded in relation to surrounding dwellings and would not be compatible with the overall character of Prospect Hills. 3) The approval of the proposed subdivision could establish a precedence leading to the creation of similarly narrow lots in the area which would further detract from the character of Prospect Hills. Mr. Hughes also submitted to the Commission a letter from Pat Fredricksen of 7001 Dublin Road who strongly objected to the subdivision. Bernadette Fairchild was present to answer the Commission's questions regarding the request. Bernadette Fairchild explained that she was requesting the sub- division because she had unclear title to her property. Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission to evaluate the case on the merits of its planning. Ralph Linvill of 7005 Antrim Road voiced his opposition to the subdivision as did Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive and Harold Hargrove of 5900 West 70th Street who felt the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent of many small lots. David Runyan felt that in terms of lot size this request was out of line with the area and therefore moved that the Commission deny the subdivision request based on the reasons previously stated by staff. Helen McClelland seconded this motion. All voted aye; the request was denied. S-79-10 Kiichli Addition. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Antrim Road. Gordon Hughes recommended that this item be continued for one month because the signs have not been erected for the sufficient amount of time. David Runyan moved that the item be continued for one month. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the request was continued. Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 10 Z-79-7 Klodt's Addition to Edina. R-1 Single Family District and to 0-1 Office District. S-79-11 Klodt's Addition to Edina. Generally located south of West 76th Street and east of York Avenue. Gordon Hughes recommended that this item be continued for one month based on the request of the proponents. Richard Seaberg moved that the Commission continue the request. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. Next Meeting Date: August 1, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Judy Teichert, Secretary