Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 08-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan Member Absent: Richard Seaberg Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Judy Teichert, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes David Runyan moved that the minutes of the June 27, 1979, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Old Business: Z-79-3 Don Berg Construction Company. R-1 Single Family and District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. S-79-6 Don Berg Construction Company. Generally located north of the Crosstown Highway and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield, and Southern Railway. Gordon Hughes recalled that the Commission reviewed this rezoning and subdivision request at two prior meetings. On these occasions, he reminded that the Commission recommended approval of the proposed develop- ment plans which delineated two, four -unit residential buildings. Mr. Hughes advised that the City Council heard the subject request at its July 16, 1979, meeting at which time the Council expressed concern about the number of units proposed for the site. lie continued that at the Council's suggestion, the proponent withdrew his request and agreed to pursue an alternative plan. Gordon Hughes noted that staff had met with the proponent following the July 16, 1979, meeting, and the proponent was present with a revised request. Mr. Don Berg presented to the Commission a f our-plex plan along with a plan for four double bungalows which met all the ordinance require- ments. In comparing the plans, Mr. Berg pointed out that the four double bungalows would take up more lot coverage, leave less green area, and be two stories in height. The four-plexes, on the other hand, would be one and a half stories with a tuck -under garage, be 126 feet in length, and rent for about 600 dollars a month. Mr. Berg also clarified that the duplexes, if built, would be for sale whereas he would retain ownership of the four-plexes. Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 2 Helen McClelland explained to the Commission what had happened at the Council meeting, and asked Mr. Berg if he would consider two, tri-plexes on the site. Mr. Berg replied he was not asking for tri-plexes, and if the four- plexes would not be acceptable, he would go with the duplexes. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission approve the two, four- plexes and send the Council a letter stating the reasons the Commission approved a density of four units per acre. James Bentley seconded the motion. Len Fernelius asked if there would be no need for any approval at all if the double bungalows were built. Gordon Hughes replied that a rezoning to R-2 would be required but the controls on landscaping, building design, and site requirements are not as stringent. Shirley Stoddart of 6227 Westridge Boulevard stated the neighbors were afraid that their residential neighborhood would be turned into a multiple unit area. Shirley Berg, 5900 Hansen Road, noted that if they only got duplexes they could still put five bedrooms in each unit making the density greater than the proposed four-plexes. Ray 0 -Shaughnessy of 6308 Valley View Road felt the site of 1.85 acres was not large enough to accommodate eight units. Jim Voss of 6300 Valley View Road commented that he would like to see single family homes on that site. There was no further discussion. Upon roll the following voted: Ayes: Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Mary McDonald, David Runyan Nays: Len Fernelius, Helen McClelland The motion carried. Z-79-5 Metro Consultants. p-1 Single Family District to and PRD -4 Planned Residential District. S-79-7 Metro Consultants. Generally located west of France Avenue and south of 51st Street. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that they had reviewed and approved preliminary plans for the subject rezoning and subdivision at the May 30, 1979, meeting. He noted that these plans proposed an 18 unit market rate condominium building. Mr. Hughes informed them that the City Council granted preliminary rezoning and plat approval at its June 18, 1979, meeting. Gordon Hughes continued that the proponents have now returned with final development plans and are seeking final zoning approval. He added that the plans respond favorably to the modifications requested by the Commission on May 30, 1979, in that the driveway entrance has been relocated 55 feet westerly to reduce conflicts with the 51st Street and France Avenue intersection, Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 3 and the amount of landscaping on the west side of the property has been increased. Therefore, staff recommended approval. of the final development plans but suggested the following modifications: the landscape plan should specify species and size class,.and the storm sewer plan requires some minor corrections. Mr. Hughes introduced Peter Jarvis of Bather, Ringrose, and Wolsfeld and Jack Brandt, president of Metro Consultants, who were present to answer the Commission's questions. Mr. Jarvis stated the architecture of the building would remain exactly.like the plans previously presented. David Runyan asked Peter Jarvis if there would be any special affects with lighting on the outside of the project. Peter Jarvis replied there would not be special lanterns or anything. Len Fernelius moved that the Commission approve the final development plans with the conditions that the landscape plan should specify species and size class, and that some minor corrections be made to the storm sewer plan, and that final zoning be conditioned upon final platting of the property. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion of approval carried. Z-79-6 Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. R-1 Single Family and District to R-2 Two Family District. j-79-8 Warden Acres, Peterson Repl.at. Generally located south of Grove Street and west of. the Minneapolis.., Northfield, and Southern Railway. Gordon Hughes recalled that the Commission reviewed the subject subdivision and rezoning request at the May 30, 1979, meeting and recommended approval of the proposed subdivision but recommended denial of the proposed rezoning to R-2 for one of the lots. He continued that the City Council heard the subject subdivision and rezoning request at its June 18, 1979, meeting and referred the request back to the Commission to consider a reduction of the number of lots in the proposed subdivision. Staff felt the Council, in general, agreed with the Commission's negative recommendation concerning the rezoning request. Mr. Hughes also stated that he had met with the proponents several times since the June 18th City Council meeting, and the proponents indicated they would like to pursue their original request. He then introduced Mr. Evans Meineke and Mr.. James Peterson, the proponents. Evans Meineke explained the original proposal to the Commission. James Peterson, the developer of the westerly half of the proposal, commented that the Commission should reach a decision as to what should be used as a buffer between a detrimental area and a single family residential area. He noted that in several places, double bungalows had been used to do just that. Mr. Peterson added that he felt one additional car in the neighborhood would not create a problem, and that was the best use for that particular corner. Helen McClelland clarified that the Council, in general, felt the R-2 rezoning was not particularly appropriate, but it was the density issue which prompted them to return the request to the Planning Commission. Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 4 In reference to Mary McDonald's question as to whether single family homes could be put in the proposed rezoning area, Gordon Hughes pointed out that 50 feet back from the railroad right-of-way is the Northern States Power easement. He indicated that the lot width was sufficient for a double bungalow or single family dwelling on it with the dwelling abutting the easement area. Larry Lessard of 5501 Grove Street stated he was not opposed to the subdivisions but he was against the R-2 rezoning because it is a dead-end street and quiet neighborhood. Nancy Stevenson of 5500 Grove Street suggested the area that is proposed for rezoning be combined with the lot adjacent to it, and one larger single family dwelling be put in that combined area. She added that the R-2 area is very swampy and thought it would be wiser to consider that whole area as one piece. Robert Ryder of 5509 Grove Street stated he was not against the subdivision but was opposed to the rezoning to R-2. He felt the rezoning could set an undesirable precedent in the area. James Bentley asked Mr. Hughes if the property was in a flood plain to which Mr. Hughes replied that it was not flood plain but due to the filling of the soccer field, water occasionally gets trapped on the Smaby property which is across from the subject site. Mary McDonald requested that Mr. Hughes recall the original reason for denial of the rezoning. Mr. Hughes responded that the other doubles in the area are located on through streets such as Benton and Hansen Roads and that Grove Street, being a cul-de-sac, was different. Helen McClelland moved that the Commission deny the rezoning request. James Bentley seconded the motion. Upon roll the following voted: Ayes: James Bentley, Helen McClelland Nays: Bill Lewis, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Mary McDonald, David Runyan The motion failed. Len Fernelius moved that the Commission approve the request to rezone the property to R-2 on the basis that it is an acceptable buffer between a residential area and the railroad and to approve the subdivision as requested. Del Johnson seconded the motion. The following voted: Ayes: Bill Lewis, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Mary McDonald, David Runyan Nays: James Bentley, Helen McClelland The motion to approve the request carried. Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 5 5-79-10 Kiichli Addition. Generally located north of West 62nd Street and west of Tracy Avenue. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the proponents were requesting that this item be continued for one month. Gordon Johnson moved that the item be continued as requested. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the request was continued. Z-79-7 K1odt's Addition to Edina. R-1 Single Family District and to 0-1 Office District. 5-79-11 Klodt's Addition to Edina. Generally located south of West 76th Street and east of York Avenue. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, which measures 5.28 acres in area, is bounded on the west by York Avenue, on the north by West 76th Street, and by single family dwellings on the east side. He also noted that Yorkdale Townhomes, a 90 unit low and moderate income development is located north of the subject property. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent is requesting a rezoning of the subject property to 0-1 Office District, and construct a three story, 60,000 square foot building on the site. He continued that access to the develop- ment would be by way of two curb cuts on York Avenue and one curb cut on West 76th Street;.approximately 320 parking spaces would be provided to support the office use. Gordon Hughes recalled that the subject property is located within the South Edina Plan area, and the primary objective of the South Edina Plan was the control of land uses to lessen existing and future traffic problems. He added that a secondary objective of the Plan was the provision of adequate buffers and transitions of land uses; further land uses in this area should flow from low to high uses in stages of distance or be adequately buffered from incompatible land uses. Based upon this objective, Gordon Hughes pointed out that the subject property was designated for multiple residences at a density of 6 to 15 units per acre which would provide a transitional land use between single family dwellings to the east and industrial. use to the west. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that in 1977 the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority adopted a redevelopment plan for a portion of southeast Edina, and the subject property was included in the redevelopment area. He indicated that the purpose of this plan was the provision of low and moderate income housing of which the 90 unit Yorkdale Townhome project was the first low and moderate housing project constructed in this area. Gordon Hughes stated that the redevelopment plan designated the subject property for 70 low and moderate income housing units. In reliance on this plan, he added the proponent requested low and moderate income housing funds for the subject property on two occasions from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and on both occasions, funding was denied on the basis that the proposed housing project, coupled with the Yorkdale project, would result in an undesirable concentration of low and moderate income residences. Staff has met with the Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 6 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and HUD regarding this matter and has confirmed their unwillingness to provide funding for the subject property. Mr. Hughes submitted that staff had very mixed emotions regarding the proposed rezoning to 0-1 Office District and pointed out several aspects of the proposed land use that are not desirable in staff's opinion: 1) The proposed use is not consistent with the South Edina Plan. 2) The concept of providing multiple residences as a transition between single family uses and industrial uses is not followed. 3)' The proposed use could encourage single family homeowners on Xerxes Avenue to seek higher zonings. 4) The proposed use could encourage the more intense development of the vacant properties west of York Avenue which would be inconsistent with the traffic objectives of the plan. 5) The proposed use would contribute to peak hour traffic generation to a greater extent than a residential development on the site. 6) The small vacant parcel in the southeast corner of 76th and York which is not controlled by the proponent would also have to be ?bne.A to Office. Due to the size of .the parcel, a relatively small office building would result which is not consistent with the plan's objective of integrated developments. 7) The availability of the site for low and moderate income housing would be lost. Gordon Hughes also indicated several aspects of the project which lend credibility to the proposed office zoning: 1) The proposed office is relatively small in size, i.e. three stories and a floor area ration of .26 (ordinance allows .5). Thus, the project would not be overbearing to the single family homes to the east. 2) The subject property is located very close to 1-494 which could lend credibility to a non-residential use of the site. 3) The proposed office would comply with the trip generation criteria for South Edina. 4) The proponent has met with several residents of single family homes to the east who have reacted favorably to the proposal. However, staff submitted that the alternative to the office proposal is not necessarily low and moderate income housing. The redevelopment plan indicated that if such housing is not possible, then the South Edina Plan should control the land use. Due to the unwillingness of HUD and MHFA to fund a low and Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 7 moderate income development, the alternative development would be a market rate residential development. 5) Although the multiple residential transition would be lost, it can be argued that a low intensity office development provides a good buffer from more intense uses. It should be noted that existing office developments (e.g. Yorktown Office Park, the Public Library, etc.) are located east of York and north of Hazelton. These developments abut single family dwellings to the east. Thus, the proposed use is not totally inconsistent with other uses allowed in the area. 6) With the exception of the subject property, all properties south of West 76th Street are new or are expected to be developed as non-residential uses. It could be argued that 76th Street should form the dividing line between non-residential uses. Based upon the stated analysis, staff believed that the most appropriate use for the site would be multiple residential. Staff submitted, however, that arguments for the proposed rezoning are pursuasive, and if the Commission and City Council agree with the 0-1 rezoning, staff suggested that a substantial open space easement, perhaps of 50 feet in width, be 'dedicated and landscaped along the easterly property line. Gordon Hughes observed that such a dedication would be consistent with the South Edina Plan goal of adequately buffering incompatible land uses. Mr. Hughes then introduced Paul Klodt, the developer and owner of the property, and David Johnson of Coldwell Banker who were present to answer the Commission's questions. Gordon Johnson asked about the land from that parcel that Mr. Klodt does not own to which Mr. Klodt replied that the owner was not particularly interested in selling that 44,000 square foot piece of property. David Johnson distributed and reviewed a brochure that explained the proposed rezoning project at 76th and York. He also informed the Commission that they had met with about 14 other people from the neighborhood who preferred the office development over low and moderate income housing. He also presented their arguments in favor of the rezoning of the property which were: 1) The trip generation would be approximately the same as if the property were developed as multi -family residential. 2) An office building makes a good buffer between residential and more intense uses because of low traffic generation and lack of use during evenings, Sundays, and holidays. 3) Edina has already established the suitability of using office buildings as buffers adjacent to residential property, i.e. Yorktown Office Court and Southdale Office Center. Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 Page 8 4) Because of the proximity of the property to I-494, it would seem consistent with the City's plan to keep all residential developments north of 76th Street and to keep the more intense uses close to the freeway. 5) Owner's proposal to develop subsidized housing on this site has been turned down several times by HUD and MHFA as being too close to existing subsidized housing, Yorkdale Townhomes. There seems no chance of this proposal's being accepted in the future. 6) There exists severe difficulty in marketing market -rate multi -family residential units adjacent to low and moderate income housing. 7)• The special assessments that have been levied in recent years ($161,760.48 or $32,000 per acre), pose a real financial burden to the developer if the property is not developed soon. Consider that the assessments were not spread but were levied on properties abutting the improvements although they do not benefit a wider area. 8) The site plan for the office building would meet the requirements of the City. The staff has had input into the formulation of the plan. 9) The owner has secured financing for the office building subject to the proposed rezon'_ng. This would insure rapid development of the project. 10) The building would be aesthetically pleasing in appearance. 11) The viability of the project was proven with the development by the owner of a similar building two blocks away in Bloomington which is in the completion stages and is highly successful. 12) Owner has the support of single-family homeowners of adjacent property in both Edina and Richfield. Gordon Johnson asked if the plan had more parking stalls than they were required to have. Paul Klodt replied that they had revised their proposal and eliminated some of the parking spaces and added a green buffer around the area. The Commission voiced concern about the exit on 76th Street, but no action was taken. After a general discussion on low and moderate income housing, Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission grant preliminary approval of the request with the condition that a substantial open space easement of about 50 feet be dedicated and landscaped along the easterly property line. David Runyan seconded the motion. Upon roll the following voted: Ayes: Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan Nays: Len Fernelius The motion carried. LD -79-6 Lot 19, Block 1, Oscar Roberts First Addition. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property is a developed two-family dwelling lot located on Cornelius and Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 9 Glouchester Drives. He continued that the proponents are requesting a simple lot division to divide the lot along the common party wall between the two dwelling units. He also noted that independent sewer and water connections are being provided for each unit. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the simple lot division. Len Fernelius moved that the simple lot division be approved based on staff recommendation. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion.. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. Other Business: Informal Review of Crossroads Development Corporation, PRD -1 to PRD -3. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to review on an informal basis preliminary plans for a 64 unit townhouse development which would be located on the west side of Cahill Road. Mr. Hughes indicated that the developer, Henry Hyatt, had requested an informal hearing because at the time of the deadline for the Planning Commission agenda, funding had not been received for the project. Henry Hyatt explained to the Commission that the pre -schematic plans for 64 townhouses on a five acre site on Cahill Road, west of Amundson, would be called Oak Glen of Edina and would include 2 and 2z story townhouses for rent including 50 two-bedroom and 14 three-bedroom units. He continued that eight -four surface parking spaces and 44 garages are proposed, providing a parking ratio which would require a variance from the City ordinance. He indicated that Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments are proposed. Elaborating that neither HUD or MHFA have funded or have applications under consideration for additional assisted housing in Edina, Mr. Hyatt submitted that the subject proposal represents a unique and possibly unrepeatable opportunity to develop assisted family housing in Edina. He continued that the Oak Glen site is ideally located because it is directly across the street from a small shopping complex, is one-half block from a day care center and health club, and is adjacent to a park site. Mr. Hyatt also pointed out the proximity to Southdale, several medical clinics, and numerous churches. Henry Hyatt commented that because the cost of the site is substantial for government -assisted housing, financial assistance will be requested from the City through the use of federal Community Development (CD) funds. A general discussion of the project followed, but no action was taken. V. Next Meetin Date: September 5, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 page 10 VI. Adjournment: 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, U Judy Teichert, Secretary