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