HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 12-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF'`THE -REGULAR MEETING OF THE
• EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, James Bentley,
Del Johnson and Mary McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Len Fernelius, Helen McClelland and David Runyan
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner; Harold Sand, Assistant
Planner; Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner;
Joyce Repya, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the minutes from the November
19, 1980 meeting. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the
motion carried.
II. New Business
Z-80-8 Sentinel Management Co. PID, Planned Industrial District
to 0-2 Office District. Generally located south of Edina
Industrial Boulevard and west of Radisson South Hotel.
Gordon Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property
measures 2.6 acres in area and is presently zoned Planned Industrial District.
The property is generally level and is devoid of trees and natural vegetation.
The proponents are requesting a rezoning of the subject property to 0-2,
Office Building District. They have submitted a preliminary site plan in support
of the rezoning request. This site plan illustrates a six story office building
with a gross floor area of 62,790 square feet. 284 parking spaces would be
provided, 250 of which are exterior and 34 of which are under building.
Mr. Hughes noted that although this plan has not been refined, Staff anti-
cipates a gross leasable floor area of about 57,000 square feet. Thus, the
floor area ratio maximum of .5 and the parking requirement of 1 space/ 200
square feet as specified by the Zoning Ordinance would be met. Staff finds
that other aspects of the preliminary plans such as building height, lot cover-
age, and setbacks conform to the requirements of the 0-2 section of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the uses along the east side of Metro and
east of Ohms Lane are zoned 0-1 and 0-2. Other properties to the north and
west of the subject property are zoned PID. However, many of these properties
are developed with office buildings which -is an allowed use in this zone.
Mr. Hughes observed that although offices are allowed in the PID zone,
the 0-2 zone allows more intense development. He then presented requirements
of the two zones.
Community Development and Planning Commission
December 30, 1980
Page 2
Mr. Hughes noted that although the PID zone has no maximum F.A.R.,
maximum building floor area is generally limited by the parking requirement.
Assuming that the subject property were developed as an office under its
present PID zoning, one could expect a three-story building containing 40,000
to 45,000 square feet. If increased under -building parking or a parking ramp
..�. ... ..... ., .. .....7 ...uw. ..vv. U. ca v. �..c uw..%a+.ry Flu
posed
lvposed (i.e. about 60,000 square feet) . Under the requested 0-2 zoning, the
increased allowed height of the building and, thus the ability to reduce lot
coverage and increase surface parking, allows the 60,000 square foot floor
area without the need for ramps.
Mr. Hughes explained that in many respects, the request for the
subject property represents a parallel rezoning. Due to its proximity to
surrounding land uses, one would expect the site to be developed as office
(as opposed to warehouse or manufacturing), even if the zoning remained PID.
The question, then, is one of intensity and height rather than use.
Mr. Hughes added that the subject property is obviously a transitional
parcel between multi -story, intense uses to the south and east, and low level
offices, warehouses and office -warehouses to the north and west. From a
height standpoint, Staff believes that the proposed use would be more comple-
mentary to the adjoining hotel structures than a lower building. In addition,
increased height generally allows more landscaping and other amenities, and
results in better building materials, thus providing a more compatible use
with *the hotels, as opposed to office -warehouse or other uses allowed under
the parcel's present zoning.
From a precedence standpoint, Mr. Hughes indicated that the rezoning
of the subject property would definitely influence the future use of the 1.6
acre parcel located immediately to the northeast and adjacent to Minnesota
Federal. This parcel is also zoned PID. In Staff's view, however, the
zoning of this parcel is inappropriate and its rezoning to office or commercial
would be proper. Nearly all other properties in this area are developed and,
thus should not be influenced by this rezoning.
Mr.. Hughes
concluded
that based on the
foregoing, Staff recommends
the approval of the
requested
rezoning in that:
. 1) office is
a proper
and reasonable use
of the subject property.
2) The additional height allowed by the 0-2 zoning should result
in a structure and use more compatible with surrounding
developments.
Mr. Hughes observed that although the plans submitted in support
of this rezoning are not subject to detailed review or approval at this time,
access to this development is a problem. Mr. Hughes added that these plans
do not illustrate the fact that the driveway entrance to the Radisson South
parking lot abuts the northerly boundary of the subject property. This
will result in potentially serious traffic conflicts. Thus Staff recommends
that the proponent pursue the following alternatives
1) combine the driveway for the subject property with the driveway
for the existing building to the west (which is owned by the
proponent) or;
Community Development and Planning Commission
December 30, 1980
Page 3
2) obtain an easement from the Radisson South to allow access to
their driveway.
In response to inquiries from Cordon Johnson, Mr. Hughes explained
that the only parcels in the subject vicinity that are not yet developed are
4 lots owned by C.M. which they will be using for future development.
Mr. Ron Erickson, an architect with Korsunsky, Crank and Erickson
advised the Commission that is their intention to develop a very luxurious
office building. The site is very well suited for such a structure considering
its relationship to the Radisson, some of the other offices in that area and
also because of the site's visibility. Mr. Erickson explained that the type
of building being proposed will have a 2 -story entrance into a courtyard.
The building will be constructed of predominantly insulated glass, with 50%
of the outside wall being tinted glass and clear glass at the entrance.
Mr. Erickson observed that the site lends itself very well to such a
development. All of the setbacks have been met, with a 50 foot front setback
(consistent with the surrounding buildings) where only a 35 foot setback is
required for 0-2.
Addressing the access issue, Mr. Erickson explained that they would
be flexible in working with the City to determine the best point of access to
the site, be it from the adjacent property, or from the Radisson entrance.
He pointed out that the entrance from the adjacent property poses a problem
because of the one way traffic flow of the entrance to the building to the west.
The parking for the westerly building is presently diagonal, following the one
way traffic flow. To bring an entrance for the proposed building into that
drive would interrupt the clockwise traffic flow and entail some reworking of
the parking.
In response to the energy efficiency of the glass exterior proposed,
Mr. Erickson explained that the reflective glass is not intended to be used
as windows, but in much the same was as brick or metal. The glass will be
backed by insulated material, and the building will fall within all of the
requirements of the energy code.
Gordon Johnson stated that he would prefer to see the entrance to
the building where it is proposed, in the northwest corner of the property.
He indicated that if the entrance was shared with the Radisson South, the
parking lot could be used by patrons of the Radisson South much more than
the proponent would prefer, making him an unwilling provider of overflow
parking for the hotel.
Mr. Hughes pointed out to the Commission that he viewed the pot-
ential shared parking situation with the Radisson as an advantage, not a
detriment. He added that if an agreement could be worked out whereby
the Radisson which is primarily a nighttime user shares parking with the
office building which is primarily a daytime user, everyone would benefit
by not requiring an overabundance of parking.
In response to Mary McDonald's inquiry regarding the distance
between the curb cuts for the Radisson South entrance, Mr. Hughes explained
that when east bound on Edina Industrial Boulevard, in order to enter the
Radisson South, one keeps going straight as the road curves. The Radisson
South curb cut enters on the first 20 feet of the driveway.
Community Development and Planning Commission
December 30, 1980
Page -4
Gordon Johnson asked whether the Radisson South had been approached
with the possible parking solution involving their entrance. Mr. Erickson
informed the Commission they had not yet discussed the possibility with the
Radisson. Mr. Hughes added that the access issue concerned a land use issue,
and not one of zoning.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the rezoning to 0-2 Office District
with the provision that the location of the entrance to the property and the
potential multiple use of the parking be left in the discretion of the Director
of Planning, Mr. Hughes; and with the second proviso that as soon as that is
settled, this matter will be brought back to the Planning Commission so that
the Commissioners can be brought up to date on its development. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye, the motion carried.
Z-80=9 Paul Pistner. C-4 Commercial District to C-2 Commercial
District. 4400 Valley View Road, generally located on the
corner of Valley View Road and Oaklawn Avenue.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that Mr. Pistner has withdrawn
his. request.
S-80-19 White Oaks Townhouse. Generally located west of France
Avenue and north of 47th Street.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that this property was rezoned
R-2 .Two Familiy Dwelling District about three years ago. Since that time,
2 two family dwellings have been constructed on the property. _
The proponents now wish to sell each unit individually and are thus
requesting a subdivision of the property. Mr. Hughes indicated that in this
case, the proponents are requesting a plat rather than a simple lot division
(which the. City usually sees in such cases) in order to avoid Lots 2 and 3
from being land -locked. Outlot A is the location of the driveway access to
all four units and would be owned and maintained jointly by the owners of
the four units (much like a townhouse association) .
Mr. Hughes concluded by recommending approval of the requested
subdivision. He added that Staff recommends that a subdivision dedication
not be required.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the subdivision subject to the
provision that no subdivision dedication be required. Del Johnson seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -80-15 Lot 3, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls. Generally located east
of Larada Lane and south of Willow Wood Road.
Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property
measures about 66,500 square feet in area and is developed with a single
family dwelling which fronts on Larada Lane. The proponent requests a
lot division whereby a 14,000 square foot parcel would be created in the
Community Development and Planning Commission
December 30, 1980
Page 5
rear yard area. This parcel would then be sold to the owner of the dwelling
on Lot 1, Block 3, Brinwoods Estate which fronts on Willow Wood Road and
abuts the subject property.
Mr. Hughes stated that the owner of Lot 1, Block_ 3, Brinwoods
Estate has submitted a plan for his intended use of the 14,000 square foot
parcel. This plan illustrates a swimming pool, gazebo and platform tennis
court. Staff has determined that this plan conforms to setback and lot
coverage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Hughes indicated that Staff is somewhat reluctant to recommend
approval of such divisions when a land -locked parcel is created. The chance -
of the parcel being sold and a new owner demanding a building permit for
a dwelling is always possible. However, in this case, Mr. Hughes explained
that the use of the parcel appears to be well thought out and properly
planned. Surrounding dwellings are located on large lots and, thus, the
impact of the proposed recreational facilities will be minor.
In response to Gordon Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Hughes advised the
Commission that none of the neighbors had received notice of this lot division.
At which time, Gordon Johnson, with agreement from the rest of the Comm-
issioners, stated that he would feel better with an approval letter from neigh-
bors.
Mrs. Johnson, the proponent explained to the Commission that she
had not contacted any of the neighbors because she was not quite sure of
how to go about approaching them. She added that the distance between the
houses was considerable and that the pool and tennis court which the •purchaser
of the property is proposing to build would not be very noticeable to any of
the neighbors. The Commission suggested that perhaps the purchaser of the
property, Mr. Fink could approach the neighbors with his proposal.
Del Johnson moved continuance of this issue for one month, until
the January 28, 1981, meeting, per receiving input from the surrounding
neighbors. Discussion ensued amongst the Commission regarding the various
means of notifying the surrounding property owners of the -situation. Mr.
Hughes suggested that he send a letter addressed to Mr. Fink, the purchaser,
with copies sent to the surrounding neighbors, explaining the actions taken
at this meeting with notice that this item would be heard again in one month.
Del Johnson amended his motion to include Mr. Hughes' suggestion. Mary
McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -80-16 Lot 9, Block 1, The Habitat
LD -80-17 Lot 10, Block 1, The Habitat. Generally located north of
Vernon Avenue and east of Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that both of the subject lots have
doubles constructed on them. Simple party wall divisions are requested and
Staff would recommend approval.
James Bentley moved approval of the lot divisions. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
December 30, 1980
Page 6
LD -80-18 Lots 7,8 &9, Block 2, Savory Addition. Generally located
north of Whiting Avenue and east of M.N.S. Railway.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Savory Addition was originally
subdivided in 1965. Lot 9, Block 2 was retained by the owner for the Savory
Greenhouse which continues to exist as 'a valid, non -conforming use. Lot 8
is also used for uses related to the greenhouse operation.
Recently, the proponent (Mr. Allen) applied for a building permit
for a single family dwelling for Lot 7, Block 2. The lot survey submitted
for this permit illustrated that a portion of one of the greenhouse buildings
on Lot 9 encroaches into the northeast portion of Lot 7. Apparently, this
problem was not discovered when the property was subdivided in 1965.
In order to avoid the need for variances and future disputes between land
owners, Mr. Allen and Mr. Savory have, at the City's request, agreed to
apply for this lot division. Mr. Hughes indicated that this division will trans-
fer that portion of Lot 7, on which the greenhouse building is located, to Lot
8, and a small portion of Lot 9 will be transferred to Lot 7. He concluded
that Staff recommends approval of this lot division.
Responding to an inquiry by Gordon Johnson, Mr. Hughes informed
the Commission that both Lots 8 and 9 were owned by Savory and used for
greenhouse purposes.
Del Johnson moved approval of the lot division. James Bentley seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Public Hearing - Edina's Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they are required to adopt
the Plan at a public hearing; the City Council accepts the Plan, indicating
their agreement with its principles; the Metropolitan Council then has 120
days to review and approve the Plan. (They could require amendments to
be made.) It is then returned to the City Council where it is ultimately
adopted.
Mr. Hughes explained that the Plan consists of six basic elements:
1. The Environmental Protection Element is mandated by the Met-
ropolitan Land Planning Act which adopts the goals and policies
for the environmental management of the City.
2. The Housing Element is the most controversial element and has
been formulated over many months. It responds to the goals
that have been established for low and moderate income housing
and modest cost housing.
3. The Transportation Element is also one mandated by the Statute.
The City is in an enviable position in that virtually all of the
main arterial roadways in the City have been upgraded to their
planned capacity and design. A few exceptions are apparent,
Community Development and Planning Commission
December 30, 1980
Page 7
such as the France/494 interchange and some of the other free-
way interchanges. Of particular concern are the mass transit
plans for the City.
4. The Community Facilities Element consists of documentation of
the facilities the City already has and the future upgrading
planned for those facilities.
5. The Implementation Element explains how the City proposes to
put the Plan to work. The City is proposing to rework the
Zoning Ordinance to update it.
6. The Capital Improvement Program for 5 years is required by
Statute. This is a new concept for Edina. It presents general
guidelines for work which can be done. Since .we are a fully
developed community, the Capital Improvement Program will be
more of a maintenance program rather than one of new construction.
In response to an inquiry by Del Johnson, Mr. Hughes explained to
the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is an exercise that all municipal-
ities, counties and school districts in the 7 county area are mandated to prepare
by way of the 1977 Statute. Our Plan was due in July of 1980, we received
a 6 month extension and it is due very soon. Mr. Hughes added that one
of the requirements is that the City submit this Plan to adjacent municipalities
and school districts . They then have 6 months to review the Plan.
Discussion ensued amongst the Commission regarding the 494/France
Avenue traffic problems.
Mary McDonald moved adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
II. Next Meeting Date: January 28, 1981
111. Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
hu, A,/44r./
Joyce G. Repya, Secretary