Loading...
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