HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 09-05 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY,. SEPTEMBER 5, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Vice Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland,
Mary McDonald, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg
Members Absent: James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Bill Lewis
Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Judy Teichert, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes
Richard Seaberg moved that the minutes of the August 1, 1979,
Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved.
II. Old Business:
S-79-10 Kiichli Addition. Generally located.north of West
62nd Street and west of Tracy Avenue.
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that Countryside Addition,
which is located west of Tracy Avenue and north of West 62nd Street, was originally
platted in 1946. He continued that in 1968, the City Council approved a division
whereby the westerly 83 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, was combined with -a.vacated street
area to form a new lot. The easterly 32 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, was retained for a
future combination with a lot to the east. Mr. Hughes explained that this residual
portion of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, constitute the subject property pro-
posed for subdivision.
Gordon Hughes elaborated that the subject property, which measures
152 feet in width and 180 feet in depth, was proposed to be.subdivided to create two
76 foot by 180 foot single family lots. He recalled that in 1970, the proponent
requested a subdivision which was identical to that now proposed, and at that time,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision. At the Council
hearings concerning this subdivision, however, it was discovered that deed restric-
tions had been imposed which stated that only one house could be built on each
Countryside Addition lot. He noted that the effect of the 1968 lot division and
the 1970 proposed subdivision was to replat two lots into three lots which would
conflict with the deed restriction. He continued that although the City was not a
party to these restrictions, the City Council nevertheless tabled the proposed sub-
division until expiration of the deed restrictions; Mr. Hughes pointed out that
these deed restrictions have now expired, and the proponent is again requesting the
subdivision.
Staff indicated that the subject property represents a transition
between relatively small lot sizes to the west (i.e. 75 feet by 198 feet) and
relatively large lot sizes to the north and east (i.e. approximately 120 feet by
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
September 5, 1979
page 2
180 feet) with the proposed lot sizes approximating the size of the lots to the
west.
Due to the 1968 lot division, Gordon Hughes advised that the
only alternative to the proposed subdivision would be to require the development
of the subject property as one lot which would measure 152 feet by 180 feet and
be larger than other lots in the area, especially in lot width.
In that ten of the fourteen lots fronting on West 62nd Street
are relatively small lots with 75 foot widths, staff believes that the .overall
symmetry of the area would not be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision.
Thus, staff recommended approval conditioned upon subdivision dedication prior to
final plat approval.
After a general discussion, David Runyan moved that the Commission
approve the requested subdivision with the condition that subdivision dedication be
made prior to final plat approval. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted
aye; the motion carried.
III. New Business:
Z-79-8 Crossroads Development. R-1 Single Family District
to PRD -3, Planned Residential District.
Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that on August 1,
1979, they conducted an informal discussion with Mr. Henry Hyatt of Crossroads
Development Corporation concerning the subject project. Mr. Hughes informed the
Commission that Mr. Hyatt has now petitioned for rezoning to PRD -3 for the subject
property and requests preliminary review from the Commission.
Explaining that the subject property has:a gross area of about
eight acres, Gordon Hughes pointed out that included within this acreage is 3.8
acres of park property, which was dedicated by the property owner about three
years ago, and the Amundson.Avenue night -of -way.
He recalled that in 1976, the City granted preliminary approval
to PRD -3 for the subject property which included 64 units proposed for the subject
property and 18 units proposed for a parcel to the north which is not included in
the present proposal. Mr. Hughes noted that access to the 1976 project was by way
of Amundson. Avenue. However, this proposed rezoning did not return to the City
Council for final approval.
Gordon Hughes commented that the proponents were requesting a
rezoning to PRD -3 for the subject property for 64 townhouse units for low and
moderate income families and individuals. He continued that the proponent has
received preliminary approval and a funding commitment from.the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for this project.
The proponents submitted a project booklet to the Commission
which illustrated the vacation of Amundson Avenue with access to the proposed
project by way of a private street from Cahill Road.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
September 5, 1979
page 3
Gordon Hughes observed that the proposed project would include
2 one -bedroom handicapped units, 48 two-bedroom units, and 14 three-bedroom units
which range in size from 621 square feet for one -bedroom units to 1,206 square
feet for three-bedroom units.
According to the zoning ordinance, two enclosed parking spaces
would be required for each townhouse unit. Staff noted the proponent requested
.8 enclosed spaces (tuck under garages) per unit with the balance of the parking
requirement being met with exposed parking because he felt this number of enclosed
spaces was within parking demand in other low and moderate income developments.
Gordon Hughes advised the Commission that the City Council
recently appointed a five member committee to study and report on low and moderate
income housing in the City. He continued that this committee would assist the
Council in completing the housing section of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the Council asked the Committee to consider the suitability of sites and
locations for low and moderate income housing.
Mr: Hughes explained that on August 20, 1979, the City Council
stated that they do not wish to consider and evaluate any low and moderate income
housing projects until they have received the full report and recommendation of the
Housing Committee. He further advised that the Council would confirm this position
by way of ordinance on September 17, 1979. Therefore, the City Council would
probably not conduct a public hearing on the subject project until later this year.
In that Crossroad Development has already petitioned for rezoning
on this project, the proponents requested the Commission to proceed with preliminary
review of the project with the understanding that the Council would not take action
until later this year. Staff felt that such a review would be beneficial to the
work presently being undertaken by the Housing Committee.
Staff also advised that the Commission focus on :the land use,
planning, and zoning considerations of. the proposed project and not necessarily
on the suitability of the site for low and moderate income housing.
Staff indicated that the.proponents have prepared a good site plan
which considers the topography and soil conditions of the property. Gordon Hughes
pointed out the alignments and elevations of the proposed buildings reduce the
visual impact of the project and result in the provision of common areas as well as
semi -private yard areas. Gordon Hughes pointed out that the required setbacks from
property lines are met with the exception of a twenty foot setback proposed along
the boundary between the subject property and park land.
Staff advised the Commission in regards to the garage issue that
the Ryan Construction Project was granted a variance to allow one garage stall per
unit which staff feels would also be appropriate for this proposal. Mr. Hughes
noted that at some future date the project could possibly be converted into a
market rate project at which time at least one garage stall per unit would be
required.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
September 5, 1979
Page 4
Gordon Hughes introduced Mr. Henry Hyatt of Crossroads Develop-
ment to respond to the Commission's questions. Mr. Hyatt indicated that Robert
Engstrom and Associates has been engaged as architects for the site.
Henry Hyatt expressed concern about the garage stall requirement
and brought out some background information comparing his proposal with similar
developments. Mr. Hyatt also stated he now has official HUD approval of the
proposed project in writing.
Mary McDonald felt that more parking accommodations would be
necessary on the proposed project as compared to the Ryan project because the
Ryan townhouses are more accessible to a larger variety of services and have easier
access to public transportation. A discussion followed on the parking proposed
and the parking requirement.
A representative of Robert Engstrom and Associates was present'
and explained to the Commission the background of the Edina -based company and
presented their plan for the site.
Mary McDonald moved that the Commission grant preliminary approval
of the proposed project based on the land use, planning, and zoning aspects of the
request, rather than the low and moderate income housing aspect. The motion died
for lack of second.
Richard Seaberg voiced his concern .that there were no neighbors
present to comment on the proposal. The Commissioners also discussed the housing
moratoreum position of the City Council. Richard Seaberg moved that the Commission
defer making a recommendation on the request until the Commission has heard the
concerns of the surrounding property owners. He added the recommendation that the
proponent should be required to have at least one garage stall per unit. Helen
McClelland seconded the motion. Upon roll the following voted:
Ayes: Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Richard Seaberg
Nays: Mary McDonald, David Runyan
The motion carried.
S-79-12 Lowe First Addition. Generally located west of County`
Road 18, north of Valley View Road, and east of Washing-
ton Avenue South.
Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property
was originally bisected by Valley View Road extending westerly from County Road 18,
but in conjunction with the construction of a new interchange at County Road 18, was
relocated to the southerly boundary of the subject property. Mr. Hughes noted that
the original right-of-way for this street was vacated, but utility easements were
retained in this area.
Gordon Hughes clarified that the proposed subdivision was requested
by the owner to clarify and simplify the complex legal description, boundaries, and
easements associated with the subject property.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
September 5, 1979
page 5
Staff recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition
that all easements retained by the City over the vacated Valley View Road right-of-
way must be identified on the plat. In that the proposed subdivision was requested
by the owner to simplify a complicated property and no additional development
potential is created by the plat, staff recommended that subdivision dedication
not be required.
Gordon Hughes introduced Clarence Lowe who was present to answer
the Commission's questions about his subdivision request. Mr. Lowe reaffirmed that
his request was to clear up the complex legal description of the property.
Helen McClelland moved that the Commission approve the requested
subdivision with the condition that all easements retained by the City over the
vacated Valley View Road right-of-way must be identified on the plat. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion of approval carried.
S-79-13 One Corporate Center - Phase III. Generally located
west of Metro Boulevard and east of Ohms Lane and
West 73rd Street.
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property
which measures 5.5 acres in area and fronts on Metro Boulevard which is the west
frontage road of Highway 100, is composed of a portion of Outlot A, Edina Inter-
change Center Third Addition and a portion of unplatted property. He also stated
that.the property is presently zoned 0-2, Office District.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that according to the subdivision ordinance,
outlots are unbuildable until they are platted into lots and blocks. Therefore,
the proponents are requesting a one lot subdivision of the subject property in
order to utilize the 0-2 zoning and construct an office building on the site. He
indicated this office building would be very similar in size and architecture to
One Corporate Center which is located south of the subject property.
The major constraint associated with the subject property, Mr.
Hughes informed the Commission, is the floodplain of Nine Mile Creek in that a
major portion of the subject property is located within the floodplain. He
continued that according to the rules and regulations of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District, twenty percent of the floodplain located on the subject property
may be filled. He noted that this does not, however, preclude the use of the
remaining floodplain for parking and landscape areas provided that the water
storage capacity of the floodplain remains unimpaired.
Gordon Hughes commented that staff and the proponents had met
with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District on several occasions regarding the
subject property, and the proponents have submitted a development plan for the
property which conforms with the rules of the District. He elaborated that the
Watershed District issued a conditional permit for the proposed development at
its August 15, 1979, meeting.
Gordon Hughes advised that according to the subdivision ordinance,
a subdivision dedication is required in conjunction with the requested subdivision,
and the property owner is proposing to dedicate a tract of land along Nine Mile
Creek which would complete a publically owned green belt along Nine Mile Creek
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
September 5, 1979
page 6
through the industrial area. He noted that this subdivision dedication is
somewhat unusual in that the land proposed for dedication is located outside
of the boundaries of the proposed subdivision but with the same property owner
controlling both properties.
In accordance with past policy, the proponent requested that
all floodplain encroachment rights derived from the land dedicated to the City
should accrue to the proposed subdivision.. Gordon Hughes observed that this
transfer of floodplain encroachment rights from the dedicated land was in fact
a condition of the Watershed District's approval of this development in order
to bring it into conformance with the rules and regulations of the District.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision with the
following conditions: 1) completion of the permitting process with the Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District, 2)dedication by warranty deed of the tract of land abutting
Nine Mile Creek, and 3) receipt of a title opinion covering the land proposed for
dedication.
Gordon Hughes introduced the proponent, Al Schackman of Ryan
Construction Company, who was present to answer the Commission's questions.
Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes if the land between the sub-
division and the dedication was also owned by One Corporate Center. Mr. Hughes
replied that the same underlying property owner owns that property.
Al Schackman.stated that they envisioned Phase III as a
continuation of the One Corporate Center project. He also noted that for purposes
of continuity the building proposed would be identical to the other two buildings.
Richard Seaberg moved that the Commission approve the proposed
subdivision as requested withthecondition of 1) completion of the permitting
process with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, 2) dedication by warranty
deed of the tract of land abutting Nine Mile Creek, and 3) receipt of a title
opinion covering the land proposed for dedication. Mary McDonald seconded the
motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -79-7 Lot 10, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls 15th Addition.
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the proponent is
requesting a party wall division of an existing two family dwelling. He noted
that individual sewer and water connections are not provided to each unit, and
recommended that individual sewer and water connections be installed or a waiver
from the requirement be obtained from the Building Construction Appeals Board.
With that condition, staff recommended approval of the simple lot division.
Gordon Johnson stated he may have a conflict of interest and
abstained from the voting.
Mary McDonald moved that the Commission approve the simple lot
division with the condition that individual sewer and water connections be
installed or a waiver from the requirement be obtained from the Building Construc-
tion Appeals Board. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All.voted aye with
Gordon Johnson abstaining. The motion carried.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
September 5, 1979
page 7
LD -79-8 Lot 2, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition.
Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the proponents
are requesting a party wall division of a newly constructed two family dwelling
located on Tanglewood Court. He continued that separate sewer and water con-
nections have been provided for each unit. Staff recommended approval of the
simple lot division.
Helen McClelland moved that the Commission approve the simple
lot division. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the division
was approved.
IV. Next Meeting Date: September 26, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
V. Adjournment: 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Teichert, Secretary