Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 07-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularEDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 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, David Runyan and John Skagerberg MEMBERS ABSENT: John Palmer and Leonard Ring STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner Joyce Repya, Secretary 1. Approval of the Minutes: James Bentley moved approval of the minutes from the May 27, 1981, meeting. Leonard Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. Old Business: Z-81-1 -Centex Homes Midwest. R-1 Single Family Dwelling to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located east of Lincoln Drive and north of Edina West Condominiums. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they reviewed this request at the April 19, 1981, meeting and granted preliminary rezoning and plat approval. The City Council subsequently granted preliminary approval on May 18, 1981. The preliminary plans illustrated 20 condominium buildings containing 144 units. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent, Centex Homes Midwest has now submitted overall development plans and is requesting final rezoning approval. In accordance with ordinance requirements, a detailed site plan, a boundary survey, preliminary utility layouts, grading plan and landscape plan have been submitted. Elevation drawings were submitted with preliminary plans. The preliminary plans illustrated one enclosed parking space per unit rather than 1.25 as required by ordinance. The proponent's request for a variance from this requirement was denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjust- ments. Thus, the final plans illustrate 36 additional detached garage spaces which result in 1.25 garages per unit. Although the proponent intends to appeal the variance denial to the City Council, he nevertheless wishes to pro- ceed with the rezoning and will be obligated to construct the garages according to the plans if the appeal is ultimately denied. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the concerns expressed by Staff at the time of preliminary approval have been addressed. First, the road serving the site is shown as a private rather than public road. In addition, the parallel park- ing has been eliminated and replaced with guest parking areas. Secondly, the grading plan has been modified substantially in order to reduce the number and height of retaining walls. Staff would therefore recommend final rezoning approval conditioned on the final platting of the property. The final plat will be conditioned upon a Developer's Agreement, subdivision dedication and a conservation restriction covering the floodplain. Community Development and Planning Commission July 1, 1981 Page 2 Gordon Johnson asked whether Staff considered the detached garages to be an acceptable alternative to.meeting the parking requirements established by the ordinance. Gordon Hughes responded that the detached garages appear to be the only way to provide the required parking on the site. From a buyers standpoint, the detached garages may prove to be impractical due to the incon- venience of the locations. Mr. Hughes noted concern that much of the guest parking will be taken away with the construction of the garages. He added that a situation could arise where many of the garages would stand unsold and vacant. Gordon Johnson stated that he felt the construction of detached garages to be a poor solution to the problem of providing enclosed parking. Mr. Eller of Centex Homes agreed with Mr. Johnson and noted that was their reason for appeal- ing the enclosed parking requirement. As a member of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments that heard the parking variance, Len Fernelius pointed out that he views the situation as a self-imposed hardship. Centex Homes chose the design and the design just happens not to fit. Mr. Eller explained that from a marketing standpoint, the design provides the most efficient units that makes very good use of space and offers a quality unit, with a good amount of floor space at a modest price. In response to an inquiry from Gordon Johnson regarding the history of car ownership for other Centex developments, Mr. Eller explained that in Bloomington, roughly 300 of the purchasers are single; 10-15% are older couples, many of whom own only : 1 car,: approximately 600. are:cocrpies whom are typically both working and own 2 ca•'ma's10% of the 'couples -1 ave only 1 car) . Mr. Eller noted that many people are coming from apartments where they did not have a garage at all and they are thrilled to have one. Mr. Eller stated that with the 36 enclosed garages there would leave only 12 guest parking spaces for the development. A possible solution for adding more guest parking on the site would be to permit parking on one side of the street. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed detached garages and the alter- natives the Planning Commission has to choose from. Mr. Hughes noted that Centex could enter into a Proof -of -Parking Agreement whereby the additional garages would be built if it becomes obvious that they are needed. Mary McDonald moved approval with the suggestion that the City and Centex enter into a Proof -of -Parking Agreement whereby phase one of the project serve as a sample to determine the need for the marketability of the garages. If the City then determines that the garages are necessary, it can then enforce the Proof -of -Parking Agreement and require the construction of the garages. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission July 1, 1981 Page 3 New Business: Z-81-4 Dr. John Beecher, 5209 Vernon Avenue, Lot 1, Block 1, 6 Enroth's 1st Addition. Generally located east of Vernon LD -81-9 Avenue and south of Jerry's Shopping area. C-4 Commercial District to C-2 Commercial District Gordon Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property is the site of the Typhoon Car Wash and the Mr. Steak Restaurant. Both uses are located on one lot. This lot is zoned C-4 Commercial District, which allows gas stations, car washes and drive-in restaurants. Mr. Steak is a "sit-down" restaurant and thus is a non -conforming use. The proponent is acquiring the Mr. Steak Restaurant and its adjacent parking in order to establish a medical practice. At present, this practice consists of two physicians. However, a third and possibly a fourth physician may join the practice in the future. In order to accomodate the proposed use, the proponent is requesting a rezoning to C-2 Commercial District. In addition, a lot division is requested to facilitate the acquisition of the site. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent is suggesting several changes to the building and site. The Vernon Avenue side will be modified by elimin- ating some of the windows. The building may also be expanded somewhat to- ward Vernon. The parking area in front of the building will be eliminated and the area landscaped. The existing Mr. Steak sign will be removed and replaced with a smaller sign. Staff believes that the proposed re -use of this building for medical offices is very desirable. It is also believed that the requested C-2 zoning is compatible with surrounding zonings and conforms to the draft Comprehen- sive Plan. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning and lot division. Helen McClelland noted concern about the proposed traffic circulation. Mr. Hughes explained that the traffic circulation won't change from what it presently is. There will be one way diagonal parking located along the south- erly side of the building with access coming off of the Frontage Road. Direc- tional traffic signs may be necessary to enforce the one way traffic flow. Mr. Hughes noted that adequate parking is provided seeing that the Ordinance requires 6 spaces per physician and 24 spaces are proposed. Ms. McClelland pointed out that in view of the traffic situation that presently exists, she felt the proposed use would not be advantageous to the site. She voiced concern that additional traffic problems would be caused with the come and go traffic that would be generated on the already busy Frontage Road during the day (15 minutes to 1/2 hour per patient) . She noted that the traffic generated by Mr. Steak was predominately in the evening. Ms.McClelland further stated that the traffic problem is intensified by the fact that three gas stations are located. within the same block as the proposed site. Dr. John Beecher, the proponent pointed out that while he agrees that the location next to a gas station is not the most advantageous situation, in a Com- mercial District, it is very difficult to find a location that is not near a gas station. Dr. Beecher added that there is a strong chance that at a later date he could acquire the car wash property adjacent to the Mr. Steak due to an agreement with the seller of the property. Community Development and Planning Commission July 1, 1981 Page 4 Dr. Beecher explained that the office will be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. He also noted that he plans on improving the site considerably to act as an interlude between the gas stations. Regarding Saturday operations, Dr. Beecher explained that his office is not presently opened on Saturdays, nor does he plan to start Saturday operations in the immediate future. However, he added that he was not in a position to promise that Saturday operations would never occur. David Runyan pointed out that Saturdays are probably the busiest for the adjacent car wash, and the gas stations do the biggest share of their business before and after work. He noted that with a 9 to 5 schedule and no Saturday hours, the traffic problems should not be any worse than it presently is. Len Fernelius commented that the traffic would probably be improved since it is being forced through in one direction. Dr. Beecher explained that he is presently located in the Meadowbrook Building and one of the major reasons for leaving the building is because the patients have such a problem getting to the office. He pointed out that he feels strongly that the proposed parking plan is extremely favorable to the patient, especially for the handicapped patient who will be able to park close to the door. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Staff has received many unac- ceptable proposed uses for C-4 property and Dr. Beecher's proposed use is a welcomed request. Len Fernelius moved approval of the preliminary rezoning and lot division. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Z-81-5 Community Development Corporation. R-1 Single Family Res- idence District to SR -5 Senior Citizen Residence District. Generally located west of York Avenue and north of Parklawn Avenue extended. Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property measures four acres in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. The east one half of the property is owned by the 7500 York Cooperative. The west one half is owned by Hedberg and Sons, inc. The proponents do not control the subject property at this time. They have requested the Edina Housing and Re- development Authority to assist in the acquisition of the site. The HRA will consider participating in the acquisition of the site. The HRA will consider participating in the acquisition on July 6, 1981. Although the proponents do not control the site, they wish to proceed with a preliminary rezoning to ascer- tain the City's interest in the project. Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed project is a 100 unit, Section 202 elderly building. Community Development Corporation which is a division of the Catholic Archdiosces is the applicant/developer of this project. Edina Community Lutheran Church is the local sponsor. Seventy of the proposed Community Development and Planning Commission July 1, 1981 Page 5 units will be subsidized under the Section 8 Rent Assistance program. The remaining units will be offered on a market rate basi,s. All units are proposed to be rented to senior citizens. Mr. Hughes observed that preliminary plans have been submitted in sup- port of this rezoning. These plans illustrate a seven story building. All access to the building will be from Parklawn Avenue which will be extended westerly from York Avenue. Ninety of the proposed units will be one bedroom, five will be one bedroom handicaps and five units will be two bedroom. One bedroom unit sizes range from 570 square feet to 650 square feet. Two bedroom units are 792 square feet. Forty-four exposed parking spaces and 30 garage spaces are proposed. Included within the building are community rooms, lounges and arts and crafts rooms. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the proposed project conforms to the South- east Edina Redevelopment Plan in all respects. This Plan illustrated a 100 unit senior citizen building on the subject property. The project also conforms to the draft Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the height and scale of the building is compatible with surrounding uses such as 7500 York to the south which is nine stories in height and other residential buildings east of York which exceed 10 stories. Staff also believes that 25 units per acre is similar to other residential developments in the vicinity and is relatively low for senior citizen buildings. Mr. Hughes said that the project conforms with the Senior Citizen Residence District section of the Zoning Ordinance with two exceptions. First, the ordin- ance prohibits units with more than one bedroom. The project proposed five two bedroom units. Staff has been advised that parojects of this type frequently house an elderly married couple with one seriously ill spouse. Often, this spouse is bedridden and requires medical equipment such as oxygen tanks and so forth. Due to this situation, it is sometimes impossible for the couple to share a bedroom. Staff believes this argument is logical and thus would recommend an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a maximum of 10% two bedroom units of not more than 825 square feet each. Secondly, Mr. Hughes observed that the proposed project also does not conform to the garage requirement of the ordinance. According to the ordinance, 38 garages and 151 exposed spaces would be required. The plans illustrate 30 garages and 44 exposed spaces. Thus, the parking requirement is greatly exceeded, but the garage requirement is not met. Staff has asked that evidence concerning automobile ownership be presented to justify a reduction in garages. Mr. Hughes concluded by stating that Staff recommends preliminary rezoning approval conditioned upon the aforementioned amendment to the ordinance and resolution of the garage issue. He also recognized that HRA participation in site acquisition will be discussed prior to Council review. David Runyan asked Mr. Hughes to explain the history of no 2 bedroom units in the Senior Citizen Residential District. Mr. Hughes stated that at the time the Senior Citizen Residential District was adopted, there was alot of con- cern that some people might take advantage of the zoning; get a Senior Citizen zoning in order to provide a very dense development with small units, build it and then turn around and market it as a normal market rate apartment. Conse- quently, as many safeguards were built into the ordinance as possible, such as Community Development and Planning Commission July 1, 1981 Page 6 the very restrictive unit size, 1 bedroom requirement, etc., in order to make it economically infeasible for a person to immediately make the conversion to a market rate, non -elderly building. Discussion ensued regarding the parking situation. Mr. Hughes recom- mended that rather than requesting variances for the lessened number of parking spaces, that Staff should go ahead and amend the Senior Citizen Resi- dential District part of the ordinance that pertains to parking. Mary McDonald commented that she felt the proposed use of the property for a Senior Citizen building was a good one. Helen McClelland agreed with Mrs. McDonald and moved approval of the rezoning of the subject property from R-1 Single Family Residence District to SR -5 Senior Citizen Residence District. Del Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Walter Baker, attorney representing 7500 York noted that 7500 York has looked at the preliminary plan, has discussed them with the Cooperative's governing body and believes that the proposed use is an appropriate one which they would support. Regarding the land exchange, Mr. Baker advised the Commission that if the parcel is squared off as suggested, some rather extensive landscaping and development will take place, consequently there will be some marked changes with the appearance of the parcel. Upon brief discussion, all voted aye and the motion carried. S-81-6 Brandt Addition. Generally located east of Olinger Road and south of Amy Drive. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property is a developed single family lot measuring 24,985 square feet in area. The property is a long narrow corner lot which measures 95.5 feet in width and approximately 240 feet in depth. The proponent's home is located on the westerly portion of the lot and fronts on Olinger Road. The proponent is requesting a subdivision in order to create one new build- able lot. This lot would measure 12,860 square feet in area and would front on Amy Drive. This lot would be 140 feet in width at the building line, and 95.5 feet in depth. According to the Zoning Ordinance, single family lots require a minimum depth of 120 feet. In order to meet this requirement, the proponent - is suggesting the purchase of a parcel of property from the abutting lot to the south. This parcel is designated as "Parcel A" on the subdivision plan. This parcel measures 3,500 square feet in area which would increase the size of the new lot to 16,360 square feet. Mr. Hughes pointed out Staffs belief that a division of this unusually deep parcel is, in some respects, warranted. However, the City must be con- sistent in requiring compliance with the minimum lot depth of 120 feet as speci- fied in the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, approval should be granted only if Parcel A, at least, is purchased and added to the new lot. In addition, the subject lot and the lot to the south should be included in the replat to effectuate the purchase of Parcel A. Subdivision dedication should be required for the new lot. Community Development and Planning Commission July 1, 1981 Page 7 Discussion ensued regarding the dimensions of the proposed lot. Jon Brandt who is requesting the subdivision advised the Commission that the total lot is 300 feet deep. The proposed subdivision would leave the existing house on a lot 160 feet deep and the new lot would be 140 feet wide. Gordon Johnson asked whether the neighbor to the south was willing to sell parcel A. Mr. Brandt explained that he was under the impression that Mr. Wheeler, of 5901 Olinger Road was willing to sell Parcel A. However, prior to the meeting, Mr. Brandt discovered that Mr. Wheeler is now not willing to sell Parcel A to him. Mr. Brandt observed that he had initially approached Mr. Hughes with the possibility of obtaining a variance with regard to the configuration of the lot relative to the road. The lot would meet the dimension requirements, 95' by 140' and would exceed the 9,000 square foot minimum requirement for a single family lot. However, the lot would be turned in the wrong direction from what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. At the time he was considering requesting a variance, Mr. Brandt noted that he approached Mr. Wheeler with the proposal of purchasing the portion of his property known as Parcel A in the event that the variance was not approved. Mr. Brandt added that he was under the impres- sion that Mr. Wheeler would be willing to negotiate the sale of Parcel A. Mr. Ward Wheeler, 5901 Olinger Road stated that initially he did consider selling Parcel A to Mr. Brandt, however, the more he thought about the sale, the more he realized that with the loss of the 25 foot strip (Parcel A), his remaining yard would be quite small with a house sitting in his back yard. He added that he likes the privacy and the view he now has and would not want to jeopardize that. Ms. Jean Upson, 5809 Amy Drive, (directly across the pond from the subject property) stated that she felt the minimum dimensions set out in the ordinance are important to insure that neighborhoods don't become crowded. From her view, she noted that an additional house on the proposed lot would impair her view. She con- cluded by noting that to approve the proposed subdivision would be setting an undesirable precedent that the City would regret in the future. Gordon Johnson moved denial of the proposed subdivision. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -81-8 Lots 2 & 3, Block 6, Mendelssohn. Generally located east of John Street and north of Belmore Lane. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent owns the subject lots, each of which measures 100 feet in width. His residence is located on Lot 3. The proponent desires to relocate the common lot line between the two lots five feet to the north. This would provide a greater setback for the pro- ponent's residence. Mr. Hughes explained that both lots continue to comply with the Zoning Ordinance following the division and recommended approval of the lot division. Cordon Johnson moved approval of the lot division. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community Development July 1, 1981 Page 8 and Planning Commission LD -81-10 Lots 18 E 19, Block 3, Dewey Hill Second Addition. Generally located south of Long Brake Trail and west of Long Brake Circle. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent's residence is presently under construction on lot 19. Lot 18 is vacant. The proponent is requesting the lot division in order to acquire a sliver from Lot 18. This division is apparently requested in order to allow construction of a rear yard swimming pool. Mr. Hughes explained that while Staff recommends approval of the division, the owner of Lot 18 should be cautioned that his buildable width is decreased by about 12 feet as a result of this division. A claim of hardship in connection with a variance request for Lot 18 will probably be viewed as self imposed. Del Johnson moved approval of the lot division. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -81-11 Lincoln Londonderry Business Park First Addition. Generally located west of Lincoln Drive and north of Londonderry Drive. Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property is zoned Planned Industrial District. Approximately one year ago, the proponent received variances allowing construction of an office buildina and a warehouse building on the subject property. As a condition to the variances, the property was platted as a single lot. The proponent has now completed office building on the property. For finan- cing purposes, the proponent is requesting a lot division in order to provide one parcel for the completed building and another parcel for the building to be constructed. Parking areas and access will be shared by both buildings by way of private cross easements. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff recommends approval of the lot division conditioned upon the grant of setback, lot area, and parking variances by the Board of Appeals. Gordon Johnson moved approval of the lot division. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. All voated aye; the motion carried. 1V. Next Meeting Date: July 29, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment: 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, V% 5-11 e�� �J- AJUJO(___ I VJ Joyce G. Repya, Secretary