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