HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 04-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Leonard Fernelius,
Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary
McDonald, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, David Runyan and
John Skagerberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner
Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works/ Engineering
Joyce Repya, Secretary
1. Approval of the Minutes
Mary McDonald moved approval
meeting. Len Fernelius seconded the
carried.
If. New Business
of the minutes from the April 1, 1981,
motion. All voted aye; the motion
t
S-81-4 Al Johnson Addition. Generally located south of West 76th
Street and east of York Avenue.
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that they had reviewed and
approved a rezoning request to 0-1 Office District for this property in October,
1980. The City Council subsequently granted the rezoning conditioned on the
platting of the subject property. The proponents have now returned with a
plat as required. This plat is simply a one lot, one block plat of the property.
Mr. Hughes added that Staff recommends approval conditioned on subdivision
dedication.
Gordon Johnson inquired into the status of the 30 foot strip of property
on the west side of the subject site (along York Avenue) that is presently
owned by Paul Klodt. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that there have
been attempts to acquire the property by the proponent, but nothing has dev-
eloped from those efforts. Mr. Hughes further noted that he did not forsee
any changes in the status of that strip of land.
Discussion ensued regarding the westerly 30 foot strip of property.
Concern was noted as to whom would be responsible for maintaining that land.
Mr. Hughes indicated that the maintenance issue was a concern to him as
well. He indicated that possible problems could arise from the question of
the maintenance responsibility.
Gordon Johnson expressed concern that the City further pursue the
ownership problem for the westerly strip of land abutting York Avenue at
the intersection of West 76th Street because it is such a visible corner where
proper maintenance is important. Gordon Hughes stated that he would send
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 2
a letter to Mr. Klodt expressing the City's concerns.
John Palmer moved approval of the subject plat. Len Fernelius
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Z-81-1 Centex Homes Midwest. R-1 Single Family Residential to
& PRD -3 Planned Residential District.
S-81-3 Manor Homes of Edina. Generally located east of County Road
No. 18 and north of County Road No. 62.
Mr. Hughes advised the
Commission
that the
subject property has under-
gone three rezoning actions in
the past 10
years.
In 1972, the property was
rezoned to PRD -3 based on a plan which delineated
eight condominium buildings
containing a total of 180 units.
Following
this rezoning,
the developer did not
proceed with the project and a
new owner
acquired
the property. In 1975,
the new owner requested, and
received, a
rezoning
of the property back to R-1.
Approximately 1 z years ago, Condor Corporation requested a rezoning to
PRD -3. The plan which was reviewed at that time proposed three condominium
buildings containing 150 units. This plan received final rezoning approval by
the Commission and City Council. However, the zoning was conditioned upon
the platting of the property. The platting was never completed and therefore,
the ordinance rezoning the property was never published. ' Thus, the property
remains R-1.
Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property measures about 16 acres
in area and is bounded on the north by the Fabri-Tek building and on the
south by Edina West Condominiums.
The present proponent, (Centex Homes Midwest) is again requesting a
rezoning to PRD -3 Planned Residential District for the site. Preliminary site
plans have been submitted in support of this request. As shown, twenty condo-
minium buildings containing 144 units are proposed. Fifteen buildings will con-
tain eight units each and four buildings will contain four unit each. The proposed
overall density is 8.95 units per acre.
Mr. Hughes stated that the condominium buildings are characaterized by
sloping roofs, and tuck -under garages. Thus, the buildings resemble, to a
certain extent, large single family dwellings or double bungalows. As proposed,
one garage stall is provided for each dwelling unit and the normal driveway area
in front of each garage provides one exposed space per unit. The Zoning Ord-
inance requires one and one quarter enclosed spaces per unit. Thus, the pro-
ponent will be seeking a variance for one enclosed parking space per dwelling unit.
Mr. Hughes said that the initial preliminary plans received by Staff illustrated
a 50 foot wide public road right-of-way through the site. This roadway, if accepted,
would be maintained by the City and would accomodate 48 on -street parking spaces,
presumably for visitor use.
The proponent has returned with plans that illustrate a private road and
off-street, perpendicular guest parking. Mr. Hughes added that although the
Community Development
April 29, 1981
Page 3
and Planning Commission
parking ratio works in theory, it may not work in fact because of the way
the garages are designed. Since spaces in front of the stalls are owned by
the owner of the garage, it might be difficult to accomodate guest parking.
Staff feels that the perpendicular guest stalls are necessary.
Mr. Hughes observed that the topography of the site is rather severe,
and Staff was initially most concerned about the proposed grading plans for the
site, due to the need for extensive retaining walls (some exceeding 25 feet) .
The proponent has made adjustments to those plans which resolves many of the
problems cited by the Staff.
Regarding the density of the site, Staff felt that it was somewhat intense.
The proponent has offered some modifications which include shifting of the build-
ings to the east, thus freeing up some of the area, particularly around Manor
Circle to the west of the project. Staff initially suggested that 10 - 12 units
be eliminated to lessen the density of the development, however, Mr. Hughes
noted that with the shifting of the buildings, the density becomes less intense.
Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff believes that the requested
zoning of the site is proper and is certainly consistent with past actions of the
Commission and Council. Thus, Staff would recommend preliminary rezoning
approval and palt approval provided that the following conditions are included:
1. Final zoning is conditioned on final platting.
2. Final zoning is conditioned on an acceptable overall development plan.
3. A grading permit should be obtained from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District.
4. A Developer's Agreement is executed.
5. Subdivision Dedication
6. A conservation restriction covering the undevelopable portion of the
floodplain should be provided.
Addressing the necessity for retaining walls on the site, Mr. Dick Krier,
of Westwood Planning and Engineering explained that upon a site analysis,
it should be noted that the topography for the site is unusual, dropping 50
feet from Lincoln Drive to the eastern property line. Several options were
considered to deal with the unique features of the site. The first option would
be to clear grade the site down to a 4% grade, thus wiping out the vistas.
The second, and more preferable option wou4d be to maintain the type 3 wet-
land and natural vistas overlooking the Nine Mile Creek and the Edina West
Condominiums with the use of retaining walls.
Mr. Krier pointed out that the retaining walls vary from 0 - 10 feet,
10 - 15 feet, 15 - 20 feet, and 20+ feet and are all designed to maintain
the natural amenities of the site.
In response to an inquiry from Len Fernelius, Mr. Krier explained that
only one private street is planned for the development because the site is
landlocked. He added that possibilities for alternatives were considered, how-
ever, if an outlet to the south were provided, the natural area would be destroyed
and sight distance problems would be caused. Discussion then ensued regarding
the rejected street plans that would not work.
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 4
Mr. Tim Eller of Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. presented slides showing
a similar development being constructed in Bloomington. Mr. Eller pointed
out that the exteriors break up the mass of the buildings which are approx-
imately 150 feet wide and 50 feet deep. They are attempting to make the units
look as residential as possible using different color schemes and elevations.
Mr. Eller provided a slide showing the cross-section of a unit, pointing
out the building materials to be used in construction and noting the efforts
being taken to insulate each unit from both an energy and noise standpoint.
Mr. Eller explained that the units will range in price from $65,000 -
$80, 000. The anticipated buyer profile in that price range would include
basically 25% of the residents between the ages of 20 - 30 years, and 210
between the ages of 31 - 40 years. He added that this development is meeting
a market that needs to be met in Edina Wthout any subsidies from the government,
and is anticipated to receive FHA approval.
General discussion ensued regarding the proposed enclosed parking and
the potentiality for future enclosed parking. References and comparisons were
made with the Oak Glen and Yorkdale Townhomes proof -of -parking plans (both
of which are subsidized developments) . Mary McDonald then moved for prelimin-
ary zoning approval from R-1 to PRD -3. David Runyan seconded the motion.
Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes how Staff stood on the condition
that 10 - 12 units be eliminated to decrease the density of the site. Mr. Hughes
explained that the density concern was based upon a previous plan. However,
the revised proposed plan addressed the density problem by reducing the 50 foot
public street to a 30 foot parivate street. The addition of the off-street guest
parking stalls and alleviating the parallel parking situation also helps to loosen
up the site. John Skagerberg added that if the number of units were to be
reduced, the price of the units would increase.
Mary McDonald amended her motion to include the conditions listed in
the staff report and subject to the revised plan. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -81-6 Lot 2, Block 1, Nine Mile North 2nd Addition. Generally located
north of Dovre Drive, west of Parkwood Lane and east of Lincoln
Drive.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent requests a party
wall division of a recently constructed two-family dwelling. Individual utility
connections have been provided and Staff recommends approval.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. Gordon Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
•
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 5
LD -81-7 Lot 6, Block 5, Mendelssohn, Generally located north of
Belmore Lane, west of John Street and east of Blake Road.
Mr. Hughes explained that the owner of part of Lot 5, Block 5, Men-
delssohn is requesting this division to facilitate his purchase of the west 17 feet of
Lot 6, Block 5, together with a portion of a vacated alley. This purchase will
allow the propoennt to construct a new garage that will comply with the Zoning
Ordinance. The old garage was destroyed by fire on March 13, 1981. Mr. Hughes
added that Staff recommends approval.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. John Palmer seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Z-80-3 Winfield Developments. R-1 to Mixed Development District.
Generally located south of West 76th Street and west of
York Avenue.
Gordon Johnson indicated that he would abstain from participating on
this item.
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that they had originally reviewed
the proposal for the Winfield property in May of last year. The plans represented
at that time proposed an office/warehouse development for the northerly portion
of the site and an office development for the southerly part of the site. Neither
the Commission nor the City Council acted on this proposal.
Planning efforts for this property were significantly redirected following
the May 1980, Commission meeting. The proponent agreed to pursue a mixed
use development which would feature multi -family housing on the northerly
portion of the site and office on the southerly portion of the site. Considering
that this property is located in an existing tax increment financing district, Staff
also hoped that some of the housing would be reserved for low and moderate
income people.
Mr. Hughes stated that since January 1981, the development team and
City Staff members have net on a weekly basis to formulate a development
policy for the site. The concept which was pursued included:
1. a major office
development on the
southerly portion of the
site
2. a condominium
development on the
northerly portion of the
site.
Approximately
one half of these units would be offered for
sale to
moderate income buyers. The HRA would provide equity participation
to assist these
buyers.
3. a public park
facility which would
link the office uses and
residential
uses
The proponents have now formulated a development proposal for the site.
This plan illustrates the following major features:
Condominiums
Six condominium buildings, containing 600 units are proposed which range
from two stories in height to nine stories. Approximately one half of these
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 6
units would be offered for sale with equity participation by the HRA.
Residential density is about 23 units per acre under this plan.
Offices
Four office buldings containing approximately 500,000 square feet of floor
area are proposed. These buildings range from six to sixteen stories in
height.
Public Parks
A covered, public park facility which would be financed by the HRA is
proposed for the central portion of the site. This park would encompass
about three acres and would offer a variety of activity and passive recrea-
tional opportunities to occupants of this project as well as the general public
Members of the Park and Recreation Staff and Park Board have parti-
cipated in the design of the park.
Parking
Most parking for this project will be underground. Six hundred stalls
will be located under the condominium buildings and 1,450 stalls will be
located under the office buildings. Approximately 610 surface parking
stalls will be provided. This amount of parking provides 1.5 stalls per
residential unit and 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space.
Retail
Approximately 20,000 square feet of retail floor area will be provided in
close proximity to the public park facility. This will primarily serve the
needs of residents and occupants of the project, but will serve surrounding
property as well.
Mr. Hughes stated that the subject project is complicated both in terms
of the planning issues and HRA involvement. Staff has not conducted an in-
depth analysis at this point due to time constraints and thus is not prepared to
offer a detailed recommendation. Staff is, however, excited by the prospects
of this development and is pleased with the general features of the plans.
Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff would recommend approval of
the Mixed Development District ordinance and the Amendment to the Southeast
Edina Redevelopment Plan to accomodate the subject project.
Mr. Larry Laukka explained to the Commission that he has been working
with Winfield Developments on the subject proposal. Mr. Laukka indicated that
he has been working on the housing element of this venture to produce a housing
component that does not exist in Edina today. By utilizing the site, density and
tax increment factors, this will be a joint venture between the private and public
sectors.
Mr. Laukka expressed a desire to provide a housing opportunity for
people within the $17,000 - 35,000 income levels, a group that presently, can
not find housing in Edina. Since the development will be market rate, Mr. Laukka
noted that it may be a task to hold down the costs.
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 7
Mr. Laukka pointed out that the developers are attempting to form a
non-profit entity in conjunction with this development that would participate
in the ownership of many of the condominiums. By creating a perpetual, joint
participation program as part of the ownership by a non-profit organization (not
the city, but an agency established by the City) , this agency would own a por-
tion of the housing units. As those housing units appreciate and are sold, that
equity participation would turn around and be vested in the next buyer. Such
an approach will hopefully help the next generation or two of buyers.
Mr. Jim Van Valkenburg representing the HRA on this project, reviewed
for the Commission the progress of the project's steering committee over the
past four months.
Mr. Van Valkenburg explained that the project has progressed as a joint
effort by City Staff, Winfield Development Corporation and Mr. Laukka; stressing
that the City has been very involved and has added much input into the develop-
ment of the project.
Addressing the land issue of the development, Mr. Van Valkenburg stated
that the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing for a Mixed Development
District is one that should be considered not just for this project, but also
for future mixed use developments which may be arise in the future.
Mr. Peter Jarvis, of Bather Ringrose and Wolsfeld (BRW) presented the
preliminary plans for this project, stressing the complexity of the development.
The topography of the 26 acre site is rather unusual. At one time, it was a
heavily mined gravel pit which lends to the man-made character of the site.
Mr. Jarvis observed that the proposal is not the typical suburban development,
but rather a mixed-use development incorporating office development to the south,
residential development to the north, and a major enclosed central park in the center
which acts as the linkage between the office and residential developments.
The six office buildings are developed in a variety of heights starting at
6 stories and peaking at 16 stories with the "flagship" building located along the
axis of York Avenue. The office buildings will incorporate approximately 1/2 million
square feet of gross building area.
Mr. Jarvis pointed out that on the residential side there will be an evolving
series of stepped buildings; 1, 3, 4 stories; 2, 3, 4 stories; 3, 4, 5 stories; 8, 8, 9
stories that will house approximately 600 units. It will most likely consist of some
studios, but mostly one and two bedroom units. There will be no three bedroom
units.
Mr. Jarvis noted that the enclosed central park will consist of a series of
internal open areas which will be landscaped in the traditional Minnesota vein as
opposed to a tropical garden one often sees in an atrium setting. Mr. Jarvis listed
some of the many proposed activities that will take place within the park and stres-
sed that the park would be used by the whole City, not just those living or working
within the complex.
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 8
Referring to the proposed parking for the development, Mr. Jarvis explainer
that there will not be alot of surface parking due to the extensive reliance on
underground parking that will be located under the office buildings and the condo-
minium units as well.
Mr. Jarvis explained that the development will be built in 4 phases,
possibly commencing in the Fall of 1981 with the first phase; phase 2 to be
built in 1982-83; phase 3 to be built in 1983-84 and phase 4 to be completed
by 1985.
Mr. Dick Wolsfeld of BRW presented the traffic report developed for the
site, stressing the traffic generation, where the traffic will come from, how much
of that traffic will be placed on the surrounding streets and the ability of the
road system to accomodate the increased traffic. .Mr. Wolsfeld pointed out that
the improvements proposed for the France Avenue/494 interchange will also help
to change the image of conjestion that France Avenue presently has.
General Discussion ensued regarding mixed-use developments in the country
that have succeeded, and those which have failed.
Helen McClelland inquired about the types of energy that are proposed for
the development. David Bennett, of BRW advised the Commission that the thrust
for energy conservation is in a new direction. An energy interchange between
the office buildings, the park and the residential areas is a possibility that is
presently being considered. Mr. Bennett added that solar uses are presently
under study.
Len Fernelius asked how the front end investment in the park could be
justified. Mr. Jarvis advised the Commission that tax increment and bonds would
be the principle means of providing for the park.
In response to David Runyan°s inquiry about the mass transit projected
to service the development, Peter Jarvis noted that BRW is assuming that the
probability is quite high that the marketing thrust will be made toward the middle
management, clerical function that is so heavily employed in southwest Edina, but
for the most part, do not live in Edina. ,`s/lost of the trips projected would be
self-contained within Edina, not necessitating an overabundance of mass transit.
If the projected need for more transit does arise, Mr. Jarvis stated that meetings
with MTC would be arranged.
Helen McClelland stated that she did not like the 16 story "flagship" office
building because it would be too high. She indicated that she would rather see
a building no higher than 12 to 13 stories.
Larry Laukka advised the Commission that the intention of Winfield Develop-
ments and himself has been to present the compilation of months of work that has
gone into the development of the proposed mix development. He then thanked the
Commission for their time and interest and noted that he would look forward to
working together with the City as this development unfolds.
Community Development and Planning Commission
April 29, 1981
Page 9
Amendment to Southwest Edina Redevelopment Plan
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance by adding a Mixed Development District
Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the Amendment to the
Southwest Edina Redevelopment Plan and the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
by adding a Mixed Development District are important to the development of the
Winfield project as well as to future mixed use developments, and advised the
Commission that they could either hold the issues over until another meeting, or
act upon them tonight.
John Palmer moved approval of the Amendment to the Southwest Edina
Redevelopment Plan. Helen McClelland commented that she was concerned about
the part of the Southwest Edina Redevelopment Amendment that "encourages" the
City to become involved in mass transit. Gordon Hughes advised the Commission
that his intention was to encourage van pooling and the like, and not to get
in the bus business. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the
motion carried.
John Palmer moved approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
by adding a Mixed Development District. John Skagerberg seconded the motion.
All voted aye; the motion carried.
IV. Adjournment: 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
hV-1IJ, ld"Oyia—
Joyce G. Repya