Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 05-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, Richard Seaberg Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes: Mary McDonald moved approval of the April 30, 1980 minutes. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes stand approved. II. New Business: LD -80-7 Lot 33, Block 1, South Harriet Park Second Addition. 5225 Halifax Avenue South. Gordon Hughes stated the Baptist Church was requesting a lot division whereby the rear yard area of the subject lot would be added to the church property. Mr. Hughes noted that several similar divisions had been previously approved in past years. Mr. Hughes said a survey had not been submitted to the Planning Department and recommended that one be submitted before the Planning Commission considered the proposed lot division. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes if the church was planning to add to their parking lot. Mr. Hughes said he was assuming that was the purpose of the lot division and explained the addition would be next to a private residence. Helen McClelland moved to continue the proposed lot division. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Z-80-3 Winfield Development. R-1 Single Family Dwelling & to PID Planned Industrial District and 0-2 Office District. 5-80-10 Winfield York. Generally located west of York Avenue and south of 76th Street. Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property measured 24 acres in area and represented approximately one third of the vacant land located south of 76th Street between York Avenue and France Avenue. The subject property Community Development and Planning Commission May 28, 1980 Page 2 was extensively regraded in the past and was devoid of vegetation. The property is presently zoned R-1. Mr. Hughes stated the proponents submitted a petition for rezoning and subdivision for the property. -The petition requests a rezoning to Planned Industrial District for the. northerly 10� acres and to 0-2 Office District for the southerly 12 acres. The requested subdivision proposed a two lot plat of the subject property. The proponent submitted preliminary plans to support the proposed rezoning and they illustrate a low intensity office and office/warehouse development for the PID lot. Mr. Hughes noted approximately 35,000 square feet of warehouse floor area and 47,000 square feet of office floor area was proposed for the lot. A high intensity office development was proposed for the southerly 0-2 lot. Plans illustrate a multi-level office complex of two, four and twelve stories containing about 300,000 square feet. As shown, a three level parking ramp would be necessary to satisfy the parking demand of this complex. A restaurant was also shown contiguous to the office complex on the proponent's property in Bloomington. The preliminary plans proposed the southerly extension of Parklawn Avenue right of way from 76th Street to the south city boundary. In terms of internal circulation, the PID lot would be completely separated from the 0-2 lot. Staff thought a project this large and with this much influence on future land use deserved more than one review by the Commission. Therefore, from the outset, staff recommended that the Commission review the plans and presentation of the proponent and continue the matter to the next meeting. Staff would also appreciate additional review time. Mr. Hughes noted that several items associated with this proposal required careful review. First, the proposed roadway plan for the area must be finalized. Relief of traffic congestion in southeast Edina has been a top priority for some time. Staff met several times with Bloomington and Richfield officials to discuss the project, and at present a consensus had not been reached among the cities as to road alignments and functions. Second, the consistency of the project with the goals of the South Edina Plan need to be considered. The Plan designates this area for Planned Industrial in which offices would be allowed. However, an intense office development such as that proposed for the southerly lot, was not anticipated. Third, the compatibility of the office/warehouse with the existing high use residential to the north should be considered. Four, the project would undoubtedly influence the future uses of vacant lands to the west. The effect of such an intensity on roadways needs to be analyzed. Community Development and Planning Commission May 28, 1980 Page 3 Five, staff pointed out that the 0-2 zoning was not a "planned" district. Thus, the proposed plans should not be considered as an absolute or fixed development plan but only a possibility. Rick Martens, Vice President of Winfield Development Inc., introduced himself to the Commissioners and gave them a brief background on his company. He assured the Commission that his company was dedicated to quality and felt their concerns were compatible with Edina's desire for quality control. Mr. Martens explained that the warehouse would be a,low ceiling type building and the main emphasis of the building, perhaps 30 to 40 percent, would be office space. Mr. Martens noted that in his experience of similar warehouse usage and office space, most of the trucks utilizing the warehouse space would be small delivery vans, not the large semi trucks. Peter Jarvis of the BRW Firm represented Mr. Martens and presented the proposed site plans to the Commission. Mr. Jarvix explained in preparing the plan he needed to take into consideration the visual relationship between Highway 494 and the site, the residential district to thq north of the site and the southern portion of the site. The preliminary plans were designed to see the site almost as two separate sites. On the southern portion of the site the two story office buildings would be situated away from the residential northern portion of the site. He added this location would be beneficial from a marketing standpoint. To the north of the site, the warehouse would be situated. The design would be compatible with the residential area across the street and truck loading would not be visible from the low stories of the high rise. Mr. Jarvis added that all the truck routes would be away from the high rise. Mr. Jarvis further explained plans for a restaurant as part of the complex on the Bloomington side of the property. Richard Seaberg asked Mr. Jarvis exactly where he invisioned truck traffic in the area. Mr. Jarvis explained that based on the orientation of the buildings, the truck traffic would primarily use York'Avenue south of 76th Street. Discussion followed regarding possible truck traffic routes. Mr. Jarvis assured the Commission that the warehouse was oriented toward small businesses who wouldn't have a need for the larger trucks. Mr. Jarvis briefly outlined the parking and pedestrian usage of the space and added that Winfield would probably begin building with the larger complex then follow with the smaller buildings. General discussion ensued regarding the traffic problems in France Avenue and the cities involved in that problem, i.e. Bloomington, Richfield and Edina. Mr. Jarvis stated the traffic on France Avenue was a major problem, but felt the problem would have to get worse before the state and involved cities interjected to solve that problem. He added the proposed project might aid in bringing the issue to a head. Mr. Jarvis suggested that the Frontage Road could be used in conjunction with Parklawn to route traffic off of France Avenue, alleviating part of the problem, and noted that in his opinion the usage of Parklawn was necessary to the proposed project. The Commissioners generally 'Community Development and Planning Commission May 28, 1980 Page 4 discussed possible solutions to the problem and agreed that Highway 494 needed to tie into York Avenue somehow. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes the issues the Commission needed to consider in the ensuing month. Mr. Hughes stated that the Commission had to consider a) how land should be used in that area; b) acceptance that traffic on France would continue to worsen before the conditions were changed if the project were approved; c) anticipate the present development would set precedence for other intense community development in the area if approved. Richard Seaberg asked whether the neighborhood would object to the proposed development. Mr. Hughes responded that the basic problem at hand was the traffic problem since the neighborhood was still a small and growing one. Gordon Johnson moved to continue the issue until the July 2, 1980 meeting. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. III. Next Meeting Date: July 2, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. IV. Adjournment Respectfully submitted, Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary