Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 04-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE RLGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMI4UNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman William Lewis, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald Members Absent: Len Fernelius, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Harold Sand, Assistant Planner; Fran Hoffman, City Engineer; Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes: Helen McClelland questioned the recording of the Commission's findings of Lot 3, The Pines (LD -80-5) from the February 27 minutes. She acknowledged the Commission denied the proponent's request but understood that the Commission agreed to the condition of a conservation restriction. Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission the conservation restriction was tied to an approval of the lot division. Gordon Johnson agreed with Mr. Hughes. Gordon Johnson moved approval of the minutes. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes stand as approved. II• Old Business: Z-79-9 Findell and Clark. R-1 Single Family Dwelling and District and R-3 Multiple Family District to PRD -3 Z-79-15 Planned Residential District. Fi.ndell Clark Addition. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that it had reviewed the proposed rezoning request at its November 28, 1979 meeting and recommended preliminary approval. The City Council subsequently granted preliminary approval on January 21, 1980. The proponents returned with overall development plans for the subject project and are requesting final approval. These overall development plans have refined several of the concepts agreed to at the time of preliminary approval: 1) a 40 foot wide public right of way be dedicated across the northerly portion of the condominium site to provide public road right of way to the town- house portion of the development, 2) the condominium building be changed to three stories to reduce lot coverage, 3) setback requirements have been met, and 4) densities are consistent with prior approvals.. The overall development plans also include landscape plans, preliminary utility plans and roadway plans, grading plans, and elevation drawings, all in accordance with ordinance requirements. 1 Community Development and Planning Commission April 2, 1980 Page 3 Z-79-12 Dewey Hill III. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the subject rezoning was considered at its January 30, 1980, meeting. The Commission recommended denial of the rezoning at the proponent's request at that meeting, so that the proponent could proceed to the City Council in hope of securing approvals allowing commencement of construction. Following a lengthy hearing at the City Council meeting of February 25, 1980, the Council granted a permit allowing the proponent to commence construction of the proposed pond on the subject property. However, the Council did not grant a rezoning and the proponent agreed to return to the Commission and present plans to support his rezoning request. Mr. Hughes summarized the revised plans to illustrate the modifications to the proposal: 1) The easterly buildings have bben lowered two feet in elevation. 2) The easterly buildings have been moved to the west such that a minimum setback of 150 feet and a maximum setback of 225 feet from the easterly property line are achieved. Previous plans illustrated 120 feet and 195 feet as minimum and maximum setbacks respectively. These changes have occurred principally on the northerly two buildings. Surface parking areas have also been moved westerly. 3) The westerly two buildings have been relocated such that the northerly building is farther from Shaughnessy Road and the southerly building is closer to Shaughnessy Road as compared to the previous plans. 4) A secondary access from Shaughnessy Road has been provided. 5) Several changes in the proposed grading plan for the project have been illustrated. A retaining wall has now been shown along a portion of the easterly side of the property and additional berming is shown. Staff conditioned to recommend preliminary approval. Mr. Hughes advised that the proponent had partially completed the pond excavation on the property and had staked proposed building locations. Peter Jarvis, representing Laukka and Associates, focused his comments on the east portion of the site since property owners on that portion of the site expressed concern. Mr. Jarvis stated the basic concept of the plan had not changed, however changes had been made in grading plans, elevation and setbacks. He explained in further detail modification to the plans as explained by Mr. Hughes. Community Development and Planning Commission April 3, 1980 Page 4 Mr. Jarvis briefly outlined the proponent's plan for passive solar energy use and addressed the homeowners' concern that the proposed units would substantially limit their use of solar energy. Mr. Jarvis outlined the effects of shadow on property owners who were interested in using solar energy and demonstrated the proposed units would not alter their access to solar energy. Mr. Clark of 7701 Glasgow asked Mr. Jarvis where the air condition units would be located. Mr. Jarvis informed Mr_. Clark that the proponent had not made a final decision on the type of unit to be used and assured him they were concerned about the visual and sound impact air conditioners would have on the units. Mitchell Kirshbaum, attorney representing the Glasgow Drive Homeowner's Association presented the residents' concerns. He stated the Association was not opposed to the concept of multiple dwellings but noted that heavy density created specific problems; i.e., increased traffic, noise, impairment of view and the higher the density became, the greater the problems. Mr. Kirschbaum noted that according to the Southwest Edina Land Use Plan with density modifications, the maximum density of the area should be 4.8 units per acre, the density with the proposed development would be 9.2 units per acre. Mr. Kirshbaum pointed out the proponent's plan to use all three phases of the Dewey Hill development as part of the density for Phase III entailed two specific problems: 1) If Laukka and Associateslogic was extended to the extreme, it would be possible for Laukka to build over 200 units on the third phase. 2) Mr. Kirshbaum questioned where the authorization came from to consider and approve all three phases in a determination of density. Mr. Kirschbaum noted the Comprehensive Plan did not address this issue. Mr. Kirshbaum acknowledged the Council had made some kind of commitment to the proponent at the time Dewey Hill I and II were developed with regard to multiple dwelling on Dewey Hill III, but in looking through the City Council minutes saw no commitments but rather an approval of the concept of some form of multiple dwelling. Mr. Kirs.hbaum objected to the practice whereby the City Council could grant approval of a concept that would affect many home- owners without giving them any notice. He stated that the practice of granting lower density to Phase III because of the existing density on Phase I and II, came very close to spot zoning which was a legal issue. Mr. Kirshbaum felt the proponents still hadn't addressed a number of issues the residents were concerned about, i.e. the elevation of the proposed road to service the units in comparison to the elevation of the residents' homes; solar access problems resulting from perimeter landscaping, traffic congestion from Glasgow Drive to 78th Street and the destruction of the natural Community Development and Planning Commission April 3, 1980 Page 5 topography of the site. In summary, Mr. Kirshbaum stressed the guidelines set out in the Comprehensive Plan be followed by the proponent and advised if the proponent was not in compliance with the guidelines, the rezoning request should be denied. Brian Anderson, attorney representing Earl Wilson, property owner on Shaughnessy Road, introduced himself to the Commission. He stated Mr. Wilson, a small builder, wanted to develop his property as was presently zoned, i.e. single family residential.. The present proposal would change the area to a multiple residential district and the single family area would face a parking lot. Mr. Anderson estimated if the present proposal was approved and built Mr. Wilson would suffer a $12,000 devaluation. Mr. Anderson stated he felt the development was using part of the proponent's property as a buffer for the development. Mr. Anderson added that his client bought the property with the understanding that it would be low density and in granting the proponent a rezoning, the City would be asking Mr. Wilson to absorb a $12,000 loss. Mr. Anderson stated his client would be content if the proponent lowered the densityof the site and finished off the Shaughnessy Road cul-de-sac with single family homes. Mr. Clark stated a similar project was built on Vernon Avenue without adequate buffering. He found the surrounding homeowners were dissatisfied with theproject and cited noise from the air conditioning units and cracks in their basements due to pilings, as the reason. Mr. Clark was concerned that the proposed development was very similar to the existing development and feared the Glasgow homeowners would suffer the same consequences. He said he would like to see a different concept from the developer, thought the Council had asked for one also, and felt no significant changes had been made in the proponent's plans. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Clark what he visualized as a different concept. Mr. Kirshbaum suggested that since the road elevation was higher in some parts than a few of the homes on Glasgow, and this was a concern to the homeowners, the proponent could address that specific problem. He suggested the road be placed in front of the proposed units, out of site of the homes. Mr. Clark suggested the proponent construct a cul-de-sac for the units and eliminate the pond in order to use the land more efficiently. Bill Lewis asked Fran Hoffman, City Engineer whether the proposed pond was necessary. Mr. Hoffman responded that the pond was not a part of the City's ponding system and therefore was not actively necessary, however, it would aid in drainage. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Jarvis whether the proponent would be willing to build a berm 13 or 14 feet higher than was planned for the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Jarvis responded it was possible to raise the berm and added he had addressed different possibilities when meeting with the Glasgow residents to eliminate the problem of elevation and road visibility. Iie expressed his willingness to consider landscaping that would be acceptable to the residents, and assured the residents that the proposed road would not be visible to any of the homeowners on Glasgow. Community Development and Planning Commission April 2, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Bentley expressed his concern over the high density in the third phase project of Dewey Hill. Mr. Jarvis assured the Commission the proponent had no intention of misrepresenting the entire project. The Council was told of Mr. Laukka's intent in 1978. Under Edina's Ordinances, final architectural plans are required before final PRD zonings. Therefore, a PRD was not pursued in 1978. Mr. Jarvis acknowledged that an absolute commitment had not been granted in 1978 regarding density. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes whether Tom Erickson, City Attorney, had been consulted regarding the density question. Mr. Hughes stated he was not aware that Mr. Erickson had been consulted. Ms. McClelland reviewed the history of the Indian Meadow project and noted it had been approved before the density reduction plan had gone into effect for the area. Mr. Anderson quoted minutes from February 6, 1978, which indicated the developers did not know specifically what they planned to do with the remaining site at the time Dewey Hill I was approved. Mr. Laukka addressed the Commission stating that he discussed with the Council members the three different phases of the property and where the multi -family housing would be most appropriate. He added the number of lots for each phase hadn't been decided upon at that initial meeting. Mr. Laukka said the Council minutes in 1978 indicated that they would be developing a project of 125 to 175 units, even though he wasn't sure what type of unit that would be. He emphasized his understanding that the proposed project was in keeping with the initial plans he had discussed with the Council and had received verbal approval of in 1978. Mr. Kirshbaum asked the Commission where the minutes were that recorded Mr. Laukka's conversation with the Council members and wondered why the residents of Glasgow weren't notified of specific plans for the area. He stated the residents were not given the opportunity to be heard, therefore were denied their due process. Del Johnson asked whether the residents had to be notified. Mr. Lewis stated they did not since the proponent wasn't filing a rezoning request for Dewey Hill I and II at the time. Mr. Jarvis clarified that the proponent was aware that formal approval for the project was never given and quoted minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1978 which stated the Commission approved of the "intent" and "understanding" that appropriate density be granted for the southern most part of the property, i.e. Dewey hill III, and requested that the City Council grant the same memorandum of understanding as to the future use of the southern one third. Mr. Jarvis read minutes from the City Council meeting which stated Mr. Jarvis requested City Council recognize the future plan of a 125-175 unit Coramunity Development and Planning Commission April 2, 1980 Page 7 proposal built around a pond on the southern one third of the site. Mr. Jarvis reassured the Commission and audience the developer was well aware that he was not given legal approval to begin the project and ran the risk that nothing was assured for the third phase. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Jarvis if he had found out whether moving density from parcel to parcel was legally acceptable. Mr. Jarvis observed in going through the Comprehensive Plan it did not even appear to be a legal issue. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Jarvis if it would impede U -e project if the request was continued for another 28 days while the City found out whether the density issue was a legal one. Mr. Jarvis stated the delay would be problematic. Mr. Laukka advised that perhaps the City Councilcould address the legality of the problem. Mr. Kirshbaum found the problem to be a legal issue and suggested the city attorney render an opinion to determine the legality of the density issue. Ms. ;McClelland stated she felt the developer tried •to. cooperate with the residents and made an effort to cooperate with the site itself. She added any earlier reservations she had with the development were satisfied. Her concern at present was whether the guidelines set out in the Comprehensive Plan were being followed. Gordon Johnson agreed with Ms. McClelland and noted if the density issue was solved he would have no reservations about the development. Mr. Jarvis wondered whether the Commission could recommend an action subject to the interpretation of Mr. Erickson's rendering an opinion. He expressed his concern that the project be delayed for another month. Mr. Kirshbaum stated the sooner the city attorney was brought in to resolve the issue the better, however, if the Commission approved the proponent's request it would imply the development was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which was the basic legal question. Del Johnson moved to recommend preliminary approval subject to the City's legal opinion. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. Upon roll the following voted: Aye: Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald Abstain: James Bentley The motion carried. __AAM Community Development and Planning Commission April 2, 1980 Page 8 Z-80-12. Parkwood Knolls Cougar Addition. R-1 Single and Family Dwelling District to R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. S-80->e*7 Parkwood Knolls Cougar Addition. Generally located east of Malibu Drive and north of Telemark Trail. Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission the subject property includes two developed two family dwelling lots and a portion of a right of way (i.e. Cougar Trail) that was never improved as a public street. Based upon preliminary plats approved for properties to the east, Cougar Trail will not be extended and utilized and thus this right of way is no longer needed. The proponent requested that the Cougar Trail right of way and adjoining easements be vacated for the purpose of providing one new R-2 lot. Mr. Hughes pointed out in order to provide the required area for the new lot (i.e. 15,000 square feet), the southerly 20 feet of the lot to the north and the northerly 20 feet of the lot to the south be combined with the Cougar Trail right of way. Thus, the proposed subdivision and rezoning would allow the creation of the R-2 lot. Staff recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and subdivision with the following conditions: 1) Vacation of the Cougar Trail right of way and adjoining easements. 2) Subdivision dedication based on the newly created lot. 3) Removal of an existing water stub and valve in the Cougar Trail right of way and installation of double sewer and water connections. 4) Staff recommended that a lateral sewer line be installed at present along the northerly portion of the new lot to serve the proponent's property to the east. Gordon Johnson moved approval subject to the conditions listed above. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Request To Amend The Zoning Ordinance To Allow Exercising Or Reducing Salons In C-1 Commercial. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission the proponent was requesting permission to establish an exercise and fitness salon in the Cahill Shopping Center at West 70th Street and Cahill Road. The Cahill Shopping Center is zoned C-1 Commercial at present. According to the zoning ordinance such use is not allowed but rather is allowed in C-2 and C-3 zones. Therefore, the proponent requests that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow exercising or reducing salons in the C-1 zones. Community Development and Planning Commission April 2, 19£30 Page 9 Mr. Hughes noted the letter from the proponent's attorney summarized the various aspects of the business, however the issue before the Commission and Council is whether the concept of such a use would be allowed in C-1 zones. The City has distinguished between C-1 and C-2 zones on the basis of "goods" provided and the area in which the zone serves. C-1 zones have been designated neighborhood level service areas for retailing convenience goods and services while the C-2 zones are designated for community level retail and commercial areas. At present, Mr. Hughes stated the Cahill Shopping Center, Valley View/Wooddale, and 44th and France area zoned C-1. 50th and France and the Radisson Hotel area are zoned C-2. Most of Southdale is zoned C-3 which provides for "multi -community" shopping (N.B. C-1 and C-2 ones are also allowed in C-3 zones). The only use similar to the request allowed in C-1 zones is the "handball courts", and a handball court is, in fact, located in the Cahill Shopping Center. Mr. Hughes acknowledged a fitness salon was very similar to a handball court in nature, and thus was an excellent reason for approval of the amendment to the ordinance. However, staff has advocated that C-1 zones should be used to the maximum extent for neighborhood convenience goods and services. Mr. Hughes noted the business being proposed appeared to be well managed and attractive, but staff believed that it would be more appropriately located in a "community level" district. Staff recommended denial of the ordinance amendment for the following reasons: 1) The Cahill shopping area and other C-1 zones should be used for neighborhood level goods and services. 2) It will be difficult to allow this "C-2 use" in C-1 zones without allowing other requests for similar ordinance amendments. 3) The use is more appropriately located in C-2 or C-3 zones. 4) The amendment would allow any exercising or reducing salon club or spa to locate in C-1. Although the proponent's business may not be incompatible, other business may be. Mr. Jim Nelson, representing the proponent from Eberhardt Company addressed the Commission. He stated the Eberhardt Company managed the shopping center and wanted to emphasize their enthusiasm at having the proponent and her business in the Cahill Shopping Center. Mr. Nelson wondered whether the proponent's business couldn't be considered as part of C-1 zoning since it was a service to the neighborhood. Del Johnson asked Mr. Hughes why this had to be approached from'the standpoint of amending an ordinance instead of granting an exception. Mr. Hughes responded that Edina had an exclusive zoning ordinance, i.e. if a specific use was not mentioned in the ordinance it was not allowed. The present business did not fit into any definition of a C-1 zone. In addition, Mr. Hughes Community Development and Planning Commission _ "April 2, 1980 Page 10 added the City did not have a special permit system, whereby the City could grant a permit to occupy the space in the shopping center. Ms. Lonna Mosow, the proponent, explained to the Commission that she had operated an exercise fitness center for approximately four years, was a resident of Edina and noted that most of her clients were Edina residents. Ms. Mosow added her business was now located on France Avenue in Edina, but a need for more space prompted her to move elsewhere. Ms. Mosow explained that her exercise center did not have any mechanical equipment, swimming or whirl pools, or juice and snack bar, but operated a small retail business related to exercise and sports. Most of the activities were carried on in a large room where clients exercised and danced aerobically to music. A general discussion ensued regarding definition of uses in C-1 and C-2 zones and how Ms. Mosow 's business could be described under a C-1 zone. Gordon Johnson said he didn't feel the exercise center would create a problem for the neighborhood and supported the amendment. The Commission all stated they were in favor of Ms. Mosow's center, however, they wanted to guard against lettirg in other health spas with heavy equipment, pools, etc. into a C-1 zone. Mary McDonald moved to approve the request to amend the zoning ordinance with a restrictive definition for permitted use in the C-1 zone. James Bentley seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following voted: Ayes: Mary McDonald, James Bentley, Gordon Johnson, Bill Lewis, Del Jihnson Abstain: Helen McClelland Review of Historic Building Survey of Edina, MN. Harold Sand explained that the Historic Preservation Board would like the Commission to adopt the Historic Building Survey as a planning tool. He added that the historic Preservation Board had received a matching grant from the Minnesota Historical Society for publication of the Survey. Since the Commission expressed interest in the survey and slides of historic homes in Edina, Mr. Sand said he would arrange for the Commission to see them at the next meeting. Gordon Johnson moved to continue the review until April 30. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye, the motion carried.