HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 05-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPOMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson,
Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, John Palmer, Leonard
Ring, David Runyan, John Skagerberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: James Bentley and Leonard Fernelius
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works/Engineering
Joyce Repya, Secretary
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 29, 1981
Del Johnson moved approval of the minutes from the April 29, 1981,
meeting. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
11. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-80-3 Winfield Developments. R-1 to Mixed Development District.
Generally located south of W. 76th Street and west of York
Avenue.
The Staff requested an indefinate continuance. No action was taken.
Ill. NEW BUSINESS:
S-81-5 One Corporate Center Phase 6. Generally located east of
Ohms Lane and west of Metro Boulevard.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures
about 7.4 acres in area and is zoned 0-2 Office Building District. The property
abuts and is in essence, an extension of One Corporate Center Phase 5 which
was approved last year and is presently under construction.
As with Phase 5, a townhouse type office development is proposed.
The proponent's plans illustrate an eight building office complex. All buildings
would be one or two stories in height. When viewed in its entirety, the proposed
development complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Due to
the townhouse type subdivision, however, variances will have to be granted for
floor area ratio, lot coverage, and setbacks for each lot. For traffic circulation
and parking purposes, the subject plat will be joined with Phase 5.
Mr. Hughes explained that Staff believes that the proposed plat is a
logical and expected extension of the development plan approved in conjunction
with Phase 5. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. An executed Developer's Agreement
2. A Conservation Restriction covering a small part of the northeasterly
Minutes - Community Development and Planning Commission
May 2.7, 1981
Page 2
portion of the property abutting Nine Mile Creek. This restriction
is necessary to provide a 50 foot setback from the creek which will
be slightly located in connection with the construction with West
71st Street.
3. A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
4. An agreement between the proponent and the City regarding the
design of the townhouse offices. This agreement will be identical
to that prepared for Phase 5.
5. Grant of the requested variances by the Board of Appeals
6. Grant of the necessary sewer, wader and drainage easements.
General discussion ensued regarding the history of Phase 5. Mr. Hughes
explained the agreements referred to in connection with Phase 5.
David Runyan moved approval of the subdivision subject to the six
conditions previously stated. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted
aye; the motion carried.
Z-81-2 Landico, Inc. C-4 to PRD -5. Generally located west of
France Avenue, south of Morningside Road and north of
West 44th Street.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures
about 15,000 square feet in area and is zoned C-4 Commercial District. The prop-
erty was formerly used as the Morningside Texaco station. The service station
building which is presently boarded up, remains on the property.
The proponent has submitted a petition to rezone the property to
PRD -5 Planned Residential District. Preliminary plans have been submitted in
support of this rezoning. These plans illustrate an eight unit condominium
building for the property. The building would be two stories in height and
would resemble row houses in appearance. Two underbuilding parking spaces
per unit and one half stall of surface parking per unit would be provided. The
proposed plans illustrate building setbacks of 32 feet, 11 feet, 15 feet and 21
feet from the north, east, south and west property lines respectively. The Zoning
Ordinance requires 35 foot setbacks, thus variances will be necessary.
Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property is surrounded by a
variety of land uses. To the south and east are. commercial uses, to the west
is a two-family dwelling, and across the street to the north is a single family
dwelling.
The draft Comprehensive Plan advocates the development of multiple
residential housing such as proposed. The Plan states the following general
policies:
Minutes Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 3
* Encourage the provision of multiple residential housing around
community and neighborhood retail areas.
* Consider the redevelopment of obsolete or under-utilized com-
mercial, industrial or public properties for multiple residential
housing.
The Plan states the following specific policies:
* Discourage the extension of commercial uses along France Avenue,
Sunnyside Road and 44th Street.
* Encourage redevelopment of obsolete or vacant commercial prop-
erties and service station sites on the periphery of 44th and
France for multiple residential housing.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff is delighted' with the plan which
has been submitted. The plan is sympathetic in terms of design and scale
with surrounding uses and provides a reasonable spacing between buildings.
Staff agrees with the proposed number of units (which approximates the density
of the Regency at 51st and France), especially in light of the difficult econ-
omics of converting a commercial site to a residential site. Obviously, the
requested rezoning conforms with the goals, objectives and policies of the' -
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends preliminary rezoning approval conditioned upon:
1. The grant of setback variances by the Board of Appeals.
2. Submission of an acceptable overall development plan.
Because this property has already been platted, it will not be required that
a plat be submitted.
General discussion ensued regarding the proposed plans, after
which Mr. Howard Goltz, the developer advised the Commission that the
condominium units will be 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. There will probably
be 2 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units.
Regarding the garages, Mr. Goltz explained that they will be on
the street level and the units will be terraced in the front to allow for the
under building garages. He further explained that the exterior materials
for the buildings have not yet been decided, however, the feeling for the
building lends itself to a redwood lap siding, subject to the approval of
the plans.
Mr. Goltz presented photographs of the site as it presently stands
with the closed gas station. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed use
of the site as it relates to the adjacent properties, and setback requirements.
John Palmer moved approval of the preliminary rezoning request
subject to the Staffs recommendations. John Skagerberg seconded the motion.
All voted aye; the motion carried.
Minutes - Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 4
Z -E1-3 Leo Evans Property, R-1 to PRD -2. Generally located south of
Vernon Avenue and east of Olinger Road.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures
approximately nine acres in area arid is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District.
The property abuts developed single family lots on the south and Hawkes Lake
on the east. Across Vernon Avenue to the north are single family dwellings and
across Olinger to the west are two-family dwellings.
The subject property was designated as low-density attached residential
in the Western Edina Plan. Such areas, according to the plan, were to be allowed
four units per acre. The draft Comprehensive Plan also designates the property
for low density attached residential. According to the draft Comprehensive Plan,
such areas are capable of supporting 6 units per acre. However, it is noted that
specific densities will be based on surrounding single family densities. The Plan
also notes that such developments should contain no more than four dwelling units
per building.
Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent has submitted preliminary
plans and is requesting a rezoning to PRD -2. The preliminary plans illustrate
a 36 unit townhouse development for the subject property. This development
would be served by a private road from Vernon Avenue. This road would have
two entrances on Vernon which is a county road. Hennepin Councy has tenta-
tively approved these curb cuts. The preliminary plans do not propose the
northerly extension of Wycliffe Road to serve the subject property.
Staff believes that the proposed development concept conforms with
the Western Edina Plan as well as the draft Comprehensive Plan. Staff also
believes that the objectives of the Planned Residential District of the Zoning
Ordinance have been met.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the proposed development concept repre-
sents, in essence, a cluster single family development. The overall density of
four units per acre approximates single family densities in general, and, in
particular, approximates the density of single family lots abutting the property.
Most of these lots measure approximately 11,000 square feet in area which equals
about four units per acre. Other mufti-faimly developments in the vicinity
exhibit higher densities. Blake Ridge Townhouses, for example represents 72
units per acre and the Condominiums north of Blake Ridge represent abour 15
units per acre.
Staff believes that the proposed plans provide a proper relationship
between townhouse units and surrounding single family dwellings. Large yard
areas are provided which should ensure proper spacing between units. In
addition, the development plan is very "open" and thus should not appear crowded
to surrounding properties.
Staff recommends preliminary rezoning approval in that:
1. The development conforms to the Western Edina Plan and draft Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The proposed density is compatible with surrounding uses.
Minutes - Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 5
iApproval is recommended with the following conditions and modifications:
1. Unit 3 should be eliminated to provide the required setback from the south
property line.
2. Some guest parking stalls should be provided on the site.
3. Final zoning is conditioned on an acceptable overall development plan and
final platting.
Mr. Hughes presented a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Earl Carson, 5908
Merold Drive in which they expressed their concern that the subject remain R-1.
Mr. Roger D. Clemence, Architect representing Mr. Evans advised the Com-
mission that he had met with the surrounding neighbors with regards to the
subject rezoning and walked away from that meeting with the feeling that they
are most concerned about the setback distances and the relationship between
townhouses and single family houses.
In response to many of the neighbor's concerns, Mr. Clemence presented an
addendum which draws comparisons between the proposed use of the site and the
conditions that presently exist on the adjacent properties:
1a. Homes now fronting on Merold have rear yard depths which are typically
40' to 65'.
1b. The rear yard depths of the proposed townhouses which back up to
Merold are 65' to 1451.
2a. Side yards for existing single family houses along Merold area as little as 121.
2b. The minimum side yard distance between the proposed units is 251.
The proposed minimum side yard adjacent to a property line is 20' and,
in that instance, the townhouses .would be roughly 45' from the neighbor-
ing home (5705 Olinger Road) .
3a. Rear of house to rear of house distances in neighboring single family
dwellings and in those at Parkwood Knolls are typically 100' or less.
3b. The proposed rear of townhouse to rear of detached house distances range
from 100' to 180' with a median of 130'+.
4a. Townhouses at Londonderry Townhouses are as close as 100' to 120' from
single family and twin houses built after the townhomes were constructed.
4b. The proposed plan provides for typical separation that exceeds that distance.
5a. At Parkwood Knolls there are twinhomes with rear yard fences only
25' from single family detached homes.
5b. The proposed plan typically calls for planting buffers rather than fences
and has rear yards very compatible juxtaposed with those of neighboring
single detached homes.
6a. If the current houses along Merold were repeated in mirror image on the
sub-ject site (backing up to the Merold houses) , there would be 355 lineal
feet of housing in 7 single family detached buildings.
6b. The townhouse proposal uses much narrower units. And although 10 units
instead of 7 are shown, there will be only 235 lineal feet of building instead
of 355. The amount of viewable open space has been increased by more
than two house lenghths (120 feet) by using 10 townhouses in a cluster
townhouse scheme instead of 7 detached houses in a conventional arrangement.
Minutes- Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 6
Upon completion of Mr. Ciemence's presentation of the addendum,
general discussion ensued regarding several of the comparisons that were made.
Question was raised as to -whether the portion of the property in Hawkes
Lake was added into the total lot area with respect to the density calculations.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the portion of the property that is under-
water was not included in the computations for density. Mr. Clemente added that
nothing is proposed to be built in the northeast portion of the property along the
lake due to the setback concerns, the necessity to maintain the sloping terrain, and
the limited size of the buildable area.
John Plamer asked what assurances the City would have that the land
in the northeast corner, around the lake, would remain natural as it appears on
the plans. Mr. Hughas explained that there are 2 ways of preventing development
of that land; first, by the Commission moving approval for only the plans presented,
any development of the property not shown on the plans would be ruled out. Secondly,
it would be required that a conservation restriction be dedicated not only along the
100 foot setback on the west side of the lake, but also across the bed of the lake and
the sliver along the northeast side of the lake.
Ms. Mickey Gamer, 5816 Merold Drive explained that on behalf of many
concerned homeowners surrounding the subject property, she is concerned that
the Commission not approve the rezoning to PRD -2. She pointed out that the
development of the proposed property is expected, however, it should be consistent
with the surrounding area. The basic objections to the proposed plan which Ms.
Gamer noted to the Commission included: 0
1. There is no comprehensive detailed plans for the site. There is no builder,
only an architect. The plans that have been presented are too vague to warrant
rezoning. What assurances are there that the builder will be reputable and
build a quality product? Ms. Gamer made reference to the Blake Ridge
Townhouses which she said have had problems with the quality of the struc-
tures and the sale of the units.
2. Not enough consideration has been given to the existing neighborhood.
The single family atmosphere should be maintained, even if townhouses are
to be built. A good transition area has not been provided between the
exiting homes and the proposed development. a detailed landscape plan
needs to be supplied and more landscaping needs to be provided for a
buffer zone in order for the neighborhood to maintain its present character.
Ms. Gamer added that no other development of this kind in Edina is totally
surrounded by single family dwellings with no open space such as a park,
fi Id, street or woods to act as a buffer between the two.
3. An absentee owner asking for the rezoning concerns the neighbors because
they feel he is not seneitive to the area since he is not involved in the com-
munity. He is only interested in making the ultimate profit and not considering
the impact on the property owners surrounding his property.
4. The plans are too vague and ask for too much density. 36 units are so much
more than the approximate 20 single family dwellings that would be allowed
with the present R-1 zoning. Ms. Gamer asked if a compromise might be m:
as to the number of units to be built. The plans call for the most density in
the southwest end of the property where neighbors are most adversely affected.
Minutes- Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 7
Some of the neighbors have as many as 7 units of an undetermined
height abutting their property. Ms. Gamer suggested that the greatest
density might be better placed along Vernon Avenue.
Ms. Gamer observed that the surrounding neighborhood would prefer the
zoning of the subject property to remain R-1 Single Family Residence, however, since
townhouses are being considered, the plans presented are much too vague and contain
too many problems for the neighboring property owners. The plans propose a density
that is much too intense for the area, and no transition area has been provided as a
bufferzone between the existing neighborhood. She suggested that a much more
detailed plan which takes into consideration the impact on surrounding property
and gives more comprehensive information about the quality and appearance of the
product be presented before the Commission can make a thoughtful and responsible
decision.
Mr. Duke Schneider, representing Whitehall Condominiums advised the
Commission that his major concern is the absentee landlord. He pointed out that
as a contractor and a developer, he has attempted to buy the subject property
several times. It may be possible to put a condominium building similar to Whitehall
on the site, and cover less than 100 of the property. There would still be 36 units,
but would leave huge parks and open area. Again, in reference to the absentee
landowner, Mr. Schneider requested that if the rezoning is approved, that it be
granted only for the present owner. To obtain rezoning just to up the price of the
property will only be detrimental to the surrounding properties.
Mr. Bob Gisselbeck, Whitehall Condominiums explained that he now overlooks
the rooftops of Blake Ridge and looks upon a "sea of blacktopped buildings" that
isn't terribly sightly. He would much rather see another Whitehall built on the
subject site covering 1/10 of the property, leaving the rest of the property for
landscaping and parks. He noted that Mr. Schneider, who built Whitehall is a quality.
builder who lives on the site and is well aware of abutting property owner's wants
and needs.
In response to an inquiry by Del Johnson, Mr. Clemence explained that the
"Whitehall" type of deve!opment could be built on the site, however, the proposal
developed is an attempt to introduce buildings of a scale which would be more compat-
ible with the adjacent single family dwellings. Upon discussion about the development
of the site with Mr. Evans, the owner, Mr. Clemence noted that he was very sympathetic
and enthusiastic abouat the townhouse development.
Addressing Ms. Gamer's concerns, Mr. Clemence pointed out that the
Londonderry Townhouses are also adjacent to single family homes. He also pointed
out that at this stage of requesting preliminary approval for rezoning, the Zoning
Ordinance does not call for more detailed plans, however as the planning procedure
progresses, significantly more detailed plans would be presented.
Ms. Wegner , 5705 Olinger Road asked why the density was so intense in the
southwest corner of the site, pointing out that 13 units are proposed to abut her single
family dwelling. Mr. Clemence explained that he has attempted to scatter the buildings
in a relatively uniform way across the buildable space in order to protect as much of
the natural vegetation as possible. In addition, he noted an attempt to pick up as much
southerly orientation as possible from an energy efficiency standpoint. Mr. Clemence
pointed out to BMs. Wegner that her lot is quite larger than the typical single family
lot in the surrounding area.
Minutes - Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 8
Duke Schneider advised the Commission that he was concerned about the
lower elevation of the proposed townhouses in that the residents of Whitehall would
be looking down on rooftops as they do with the Blake Ridge development. Mr.
Clemence responded by noting that indeed the site is lower than the grade of
Vernon Avenue, but to raise it up would cause a loss of vegetation and the nestled
effect. Mr. Schneider commented that trees can always be planted, but once black-
top is poured, that's permanent.
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the Planning Staff has
encouraged Mr. Evans to pursue the proposed PRD -2 rezoning for the site. He then
explained the procedures one must follow when applying for a rezoning, pointing
out that Ms. Gamer's concerns about more detailed plans are premature, for such
plans are not a requirement for this stage of the rezoning process.
Mr. John Forney, 5821 Merold Drive explained that he felt the proposed
PRD -2 zoning is inappropriate due to its incompatibility with the surrounding R-1
single family residences.
Helen McClelland commented that the draft Comprehensive Plan designates
the subject site as compatible with the PRD -2 section of the Zoning Ordinance
because very often along a heavily traveled arterial roadway such as Vernon Avenue,
one will find more density which actually acts as a buffer for the single family residences.
John Palmer pointed out that if the subject site were to remain R-1, 4.8
single family dwellings could be built per acre. The PRD-2zoning allows for 5 units
per acre. Obviously, there is no great difference between the allowed densities for
either R-1 or PRD -2. The issue becomes whether one prefers attached or unattachea
houses.
Mr. Alex Sherbanenko, 4812 Merold Drive explained that although the plan
shows natural vegetation along the lot line that abuts his property, he has no vegetation
and is concerned about what he would be looking at out his back window.
Gordon Johnson asked. Fran Hoffman about the proposed curb cuts along
Vernon Avenue as to whether there is adequate sight distance. Mr. Hoffman explained
that he has seen no grading plans and until he does, he could not adequately address
the subject. Mr. Clemence pointed out that he stood on the sites of the proposed curb
cuts and noted adequate sight distances in both directions.
Mr. John Stone, 5916 Merold Drive explained that traffic along Olinger and
Vernon has increased considerably over the past few years and noted that two additional
curb cuts along Vernon Avenue with the proposed density of the site would be taking
a large risk with regards to the higher concentration of traffic feeding onto Vernon.
He added that with his very limited knowledge of the proposed plan, he would speak
against it.
Regarding the number of curb cuts, Mr. Clemence noted that 1 curb cut was
considered and after discussions with the county, they were more receptive to two
curb cuts because it would divide the loading of traffic onto Vernon Avenue and would
be much safer.
Mr. Howard Goltz advised the Board that as an architect, he has worked
for Mr. Evans on developing plans for the subject property. Single family residences
were considered for the site ate that time as well as townhouses. The single family
sites were small and chopped up with little green space between the dwellings, unlike
the wide-open proposed townhouse development. In the event that single family
Minutes - community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 9
residences were ever to be approved for the site, the surrounding property owners
would have no input whatsoever as to the design and landscaping of the dwellings.
However, with the townhouse development, the adjacent properties are afforded the
opportunity to provide input. He also noted that when he worked for Mr. Evans,
the plans were to be used as a price leverege, however he had no idea of what
Mr. Evans plans were for the present proposed development.
David Runyan explained that it it the Commission's role to evaluate and
respond to the plans presented. He pointed out that Mr. Clemence is a professor
at the University with a degree in both Architecture and Landscape Architecture.
He is an accomplished and sensitive designer who has done a very nice job with the
proposed plan.
Regarding the proposed plan, Mr. Runyan commented that the project has
good scale which is much more sympathetic with the neighborhood than something
of a more massive type of building such as a condominium. The spacing is very open
and will probably be as open as a single family platted development. The plans look
comfortable. The emphasis upon saving the natural vegetation is to the betterment
of the entire project. If it can be supplemented with additional plantings, that will
only make it that much better.
John Palmer pointed out that he agreed with Mr. Runyan. The plans show
an open, pleasing development, much softer than some single family developments.
The plans also preserve the character of the site very nicely.
Gordon Johnson asked if it would be possible to angle the buildings #14-17
in the southeast corner in order to obtain a larger setback. Mr. Clemence stated
that such a proposal is something that certainly should be studied for the next stage
of the project.
Mr. Alan Sweet, 5904 Merold Drive pointed out that althought the proposed
development has been referred to as being so open and spacious, he would not prefer
seeing the opennes taken away from his back yard.
Gordon Johnson observed that Mr. Clemence has agreed to consider moving
some units to see if he could fit the site better. He added that he felt the southwest
corner was to dense when compared to the east side.
David Runyan moved approval of the preliminary rezoning to PRD -2 subject
to the following conditions and modifications:
1. Unit 3 should be eliminated to provide the required setback from the south
property line.
2. Some guest parking stalls should be provided on the site.
3. Final zoning is conditioned on an acceptable overall development plan and
final platting.
4. Re -adjustment of the alignment of units #11 - 17 along the south property line.
John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Minutes - Community Development and Planning Commission
May 27, 1981
Page 10
LD --81-3 Lot 8, Block 1, The Habitat
LD -81-4 Lot 11, Block 1, The Habitat
LD -81-5 Lot 12, B2ock 1, The Habitat
Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and east
of Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent is requesting party wall
divisions of three recently constructed two-family dwellings. Individual
utility connections are provided to these units. He further noted that Staff
recommends approval.
Gordon Johnson said that he would abstain from participating in
the discussion and voting on the subject lot divisions.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot divisions. Mary McDonald
seconded the motion. The following voted: Aye - Del Johnson, Helen McClelland,
Mary McDonald, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, David Runyan, John Skagerberg,
Bill Lewis; Nay - None; Abstain - Gordon Johnson. The motion carried.
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 1, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
V. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/-v,
Joyce G. Repya