Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 09-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, John Skagerberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: John Palmer moved approval of the minutes from July 1, 1981 and July 29, 1981. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried'. 11. OLD BUSINESS: Z-81-5 Community Development Corporation. R-1 Single Family Residence District to SR -5 Senior Citizen Residence District. Generally locatedwest of York Avenue and north of Park - lawn Avenue extended. Amendment to the Senior Citizen Residence District, SR -5 section of the Zoning Ordinance No. 811. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the subject project received preliminary rezoning approval to SR -5 at the July 1, 1981, Commission meeting. This project depends on a land acquisition and exchange between the HRA and Hedberg and Sons and the 7500 York Cooperative. At this point, the acqui- sition appears achievable. Mr. Hughes explained that the proposed building is a HUD Section 202 elderly building. A total of 98 units (rather than 100 units as originally proposed) would be constructed. Seventy of the units would be subsidized under the Section 8 Rent Assistance program and the remaining 28 units would be market rate. All units would be rented to senior citizens. Mr. Hughes stated that the proponents are now returning with overall development plans and are requesting final rezoning approval. A preliminary plat has also been submitted. In accordance with ordinance requirements, a final site plan, utility plan, landscape plan, and elevation drawings have been included. Staff believes the proponents have prepared a suitable overall develop- ment plan for the site. The proposed building is certainly compatible with sur- rounding developments in terms of height and density. Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 2 I In conjunction with the request, Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Staff is recommending the following amendments to the Senior Citizen Residence District Ordinance: 1. Allow handicapped units. 2. Units designed for the handicapped shall be at a maximum of 700 square feet instead of 650 square feet. 3. Allow a maximum of 100 of the units to be two bedroom. 4. Decrease the percentage of enclosed parking from 75% to 50%. Mr. Huqhes concluded by pointinq out that the proposed ordinance amendment affects this project by slightly increasing the unit sizes, allowing for 10% two bedroom units and requiring the additional construction of 7 garages to increase the number from 20 to 27. Staff recommended final zoning and plat approval with the following conditions: 1. Final zoning is conditioned on final platting. 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An executed redevelopment contract with the HRA 4. Grant of a storm water easement over the westerly portion of the property. Responding to an inquiry from Del Johnson, Mr. Hughes explained that comparatively the proposed unit sizes are larger than the Federal standards or the Uniform Building Code, but smaller than the square footage requirements set out in the Zoning Ordinance for market rate units. Helen McClelland expressed concern that the reduction in the number of enclosed parking spaces from 75 to 50% was quite drastic and would prefer to see a reduction to 60%. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the proposed development is the only 202 project in the state that provides for enclosed parking. Yorktown Continental by comparison, has 18 enclosed parking spaces for 265 units. Mr. Hughes further commented that the proposed provision of 1 enclosed parking space for every 3.5 units is reasonable. Helen McClelland asked if provisions have been made for the construction of the 7 additional garages in the event that the reduced number was not approved. Diane Nelson, of Community Development Corporation stated that the 7 additional enclosed spaces would be built on to the garages on the west end of the project. In response to an inquiry from Len Fernelius concerning the provision of cafeterias or any additional facilities on the site, Paul Madsen, architect for Community Development Corporation explained that the project would not include Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 3 meal programs. However, on the 1st floor there is proposed to be a small community kitchen for use by small groups within the building. Other public areas will include a large community room, a crafts room, gameroom, lobby area, 3 community laundry rooms, an office and 3 thereputic tub rooms. After a brief discussion, Len Fernelius moved approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. John Palmer seconded the motion. Len Fernelius, John Palmer, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Leonard Ring, David Runyan, John Skagerberg and Bill Lewis voted aye. Helen McClelland voted nay because she felt at least 60% of the parking should be enclosed instead of the proposed 50%. The motion carried. John Palmer then moved approval of the rezoning and subdivision request. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. John Palmer, Len Fernelius, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Leonard Ring, David Runyan, John Skagerberg, Bill Lewis voted aye. Helen McClelland abstained, noting concern that the park- ing situation be resolved. The motion carried. S-81-7 Alvin Leonard Estates. Generally located south of Foxmeadow Lane, north of Pine Grove Road and east of Blake Road and generally described as the North 21 Rods of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and the North 168.5' of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 117, Range 21. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they had reviewed this proposed subdivision on July 29, 1981. The proposed subdivision was based upon an exchange of land between the City and the proponent. The City's land was acquired several years ago with proceeds from a park and open space bond issue referendum. Staff reported to the Commission that the Park Board had reviewed the proposed land exchange and had recommended its approval. Mr. Hughes explained that following the July 29th Commission meeting, the Park Board again considered the land exchange at the request of abutting property owners. The Park Board then reversed its decision, thus recommending against the land exchange. Prior to the first Park Board meeting, the proponent submitted an alter- nate subdivision plan for the property. This plan was based on the property presently owned by the proponent and thus did not rely on a land exchange. This alternate plan illustrates a nine lot subdivision which would be served by way of a cul-de-sac from West Highwood Drive. Lot 7 would be retained for the existing dwelling. Grading and utility plans are basically similar to the previously submitted plans. Mr. Hughes stated that Staff understands that either the original sub- division includinq the land exchanqe or the alternate proposal is acceptable to the proponent. He also stressed that the concept of a land exchange has been fostered by the Staff, not the proponent. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Staff finds the original subdivision plan to be superior in terms of access, traffic circulation and lot arrangement. If however, the various boards and commission decide the land exchange should Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 4 not occur, the alternate plan would certainly be acceptable. Approval of this plan should be conditioned upon: 1. A Developer's Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. Conservation Restriction 100 feet upland from Mirror Lakes Mr. Marsh Everson, 6000 Foxmeadow Lane advised the Commission that he had no objections to the subdivision proposal that does not entail a land exchange. Mr. Dick Nygaard, 6008 Pine Grove Road voiced concern that compara- tively small lots would ruin the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Peter Jarvis, of BRW, representing the proponent supported his contention that the proposed lot sizes are comparable to most of the surround- ing lots and in fact, are larger than those proposed on the previous plat. The 8 acre parcel will include 9 lots. Mr. Nygaard further stressed concern about the size and topography of Lots 8 and 9 and suggested that they should be combined to make just one lot. He also noted that he felt the developer was simply trying to maximize the number of lots to be developed on the site, not taking into consideration the topography and individual characterics of the lots. Mr. Jarvis explained that the density on the site has not been maximized, and agreed that Lots 8 and 9 could possibly be combined into one lot. Both Lots 8 and 9 will have a few feet of fill added to relieve the steep terrain and allow for the proper functioning of the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Nygaard expressed concern for Mr. Utne, 6012 Pine Grove Road who was unable to attend the meeting, but whose dwelling is only 5 feet from the rear lot line of Lot 8. He asked whether the close proximity of Mr. Unte's dwelling would be taken into consideration when developing the lots. Mr. Jarvis assured Mr. Nygaard that Lot 8 would be developed on the westerly portion to minimize the impact on the rear of the lot. Regarding the Park Board action, Bob Kojetin, Director of Park and Recreation and Joan Lonsbury, a member of the Park Board reviewed the history of the park property. Mr. Kojetin pointed out that the limited size and access possibilities of the park were the main points of concern when the proposal for the land trade was initiated. He assured all present that one day the park would be developed for the use of people from miles around. Mrs. Lonsbury explained that when the park property was acquired through a Bond Issue in 1975, the Park Board more or less assumed that they would auto— matically acquire the rest of the property. As staff pointed out, the long narrow piece of property that presently makes up the park would be difficult to develop for park purposes. Therefore, the land trade was agreed to be the best way of allowing for a more developable pidce of property. Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 5 Mrs. Lonsbury stated that the Park Board has since changed its position from favoring the land trade because of the valuable lakeshore property that would be lost by the City in the trade. She concluded by noting that the Park Board felt that the valuable lakeshore frontage was the most important issue at stake for the City. Gordon Johnson suggested that a possible means of providing additional access to the park could be achieved by constructing a walkway between Lots 2 and 3 or Lots 4 and 5 to the south via a City easement (referring to a similar arrangement that exists in Heights Park) . General discussion ensued regarding the viability and future of the park. Peter Jarvis agreed that the walkway proposal would be a good idea from a planning standpoint, but would prefer to see the walkway between Lots 3 and 4. Jack Isaaman, 5308 West Highwood Drive expressed concern that many people using the park would park their cars along West Highwood Drive to utilize the suggested walkway. Gordon Johnson observed that a parking lot provided on the north side of the park would alleviate that problem. He added that the people entering the park from West Highwood Drive would be those living in that immediate vicinity, generally on foot or bicycle. Peter Jarvis advised the Commission that a portion of the parkland dedi- cation could provide the aforementioned walkway for southerly access to the park rather than a city easement. Mr. Jeffrey Benson, 5301 West Highwood Drive askedwhy Staff felt the extension of West Highwood Drive was a desirable point of access for the develop- ment: Peter Jarvis explained that if the access were to come off of Blake Road, the street would be considerably longer and problems would arise with the con- figuration of the lots. Mr. Hughes added that Staff has discouraged another public street inter- secting Blake Road because of the sight distance problems that currently exist along Blake. Len Fernelius moved approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions stated by Mr. Hughes, and with an additional condition that there be parkland dedication for access to the open space. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. S-81-9 Oak Ridge of Edina. Generally located west of Highway 100 and south of West 66th Street. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the subject subdivision was considered by the Commission on July 29, 1981. The proposed subdivision included 11 single family lots, one of which was to be retained for the existing dwelling on the property. The proposed subdivision was to be served by a cul- de-sac from the west frontage road of T.H. 100. This cul-de-sac exhibited grades Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 6 of up to 12 percent. The Commission denied the request because of the steep road grades which could be reduced throuqh relocation of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent has now returned with a revised subdivision plan. This plan proposes the relocation of the cul-de-sac to the south. This relocation reduces the proposed grade to a maximum of 7 percent. As before, 11 single family lots, including the lot for the existing house are requested. These lots range from 11,400 square feet to 46,200 square feet in area. As a result of the cul-de-sac relocation, Lots 1 and 2 must access the frontage road directly. Staff believes that the proponent has returned with a subdivision plan which responds precisely to the concerns expressed by Staff at the July 29, 1981, meeting. In particular, the road has been relocated to reduce steep grades and right of way has been extended to the north property line. Staff recommends approval conditioned on: 1. Subdivision Dedication 2. An executed Developer's Agreement 3. A 100 foot wide Conservation Restriction abutting the pond 4. A sanitary sewer easement to Danens Drive must be secured. 5. Lot 1 and all other lots in the plan must be connected to sanitary sewer. Dick Krier, with Westwood Planninq 6 Enqineerinq advised the Commission that he concurred 'with the City's recommendations and is well prepared to provide the necessary easements, roadway and water extensions. He addressed several of the neighbors' concerns that were discussed at the July 19th meeting and noted that the storm water runoff which was a prime concern of most of the neighbors had been studied in depth by Dennis Marhula, Civil Engineer with Westwood Planning. Mr. Marhula explained to the Commission that he had studied the impact the proposed development would have on the pond and surrounding properties. Taking into account the run-off of a 100 year storm, Mr. Marhula calculated that the maximum increase in the level of the pond would be 3 inches. He added that the elevation of the closest dwelling to the pond on Kenney Place is 2 feet above the pond. The affect of the development on the rear yards of the lots on Danens Drive should be negligible due to the fact that the new road will carry the run- off from the development down to the frontage road. Only the roof drainages from Lots 4, 5 6 6 will reach the Danens lots. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer stated that he aqreed with Mr. Marhula's analysis of the stormwater runoff situation. Mr. Lorry Strand, representinq his mother at 6610 Normandale Road expressed concern that the subject development take into consideration the northerly, land locked properties . Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 7 Chairman Lewis assured Mr. Strand that a 50 foot easement is being provided on the north end of the development to enable future development for the northerly properties. Chairman Lewis further explained that the sanitary sewer connection for Lot 1 can be extended to the north, facilitating future development. Mr. Michael Halley, President of Halley Land Corporation stated that Mr. Burch Bell whose property abuts the development to the north and Mrs. Strand's property to the south was unable to attend the meeting, however, he has told Mr. Halley that he is anxious to hook up to the sanitary sewer. It would then be a simple matter of further extending the line northerly to Mrs. Strand's property. Mr. Glen Knoblaugh, 5144 Danens Drive asked whether the easement for the sanitary sewer to Danens Drive had been secured, or whether the alternative of a sanitary lift station was being considered instead. Mr. Halley stated that the easement had not yet been secured, however, it would be the preferable alternative versus the pump station. Mr. Richard Nelson, 5204 Danens Drive expressed concern that the runoff from the development will cause a drastic change in the pond that could threaten the wildlife that inhabits the area. He also noted concern that the lots surrounding the pond might experience flooding. Ronald Zamansky, 5041 West 66th Street stated that he was concerned with the traffic problems that would arise on the frontaqe road with the develop- ment of the subiect property. He also concurred with the already expressed concerns of some residents regarding the storm water situation. Mr. Joe Hauser, 5045 West 66th Street stated that he had no objections to the proposed development, but stressed his concern that access be provided to the northerly properties to allow for the potential of future developments of the several large parcels of property. Helen McClelland moved approval of the subdivision subject to the Staff s conditions. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: Z-81-6 T.M.G. Investments. C-4 to C-2 Commercial District. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue, east of Summit Avenue and west of Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 24,000 square feet in area and is developed with a building which contains a hairdresser, a take-out restaurant, and a vacant automobile service station. Most of the subject property is zoned C-4 Commercial District. However, anapproximately 40 foot wide strip along the west edge of the property is zoned C-2 Commercial District. This C-2 zoning does not appear to be colinear with Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 8 the partitions separating the restaurant from the automobile service station. Thus, it appears that portions of the restaurant and possibly the hair- dresser are located in the C-4 property and are thus non -conforming. Mr. Hughes stated that the proponent is requesting a rezoning of the whole of the property from C-4 to C-2 Commercial District. Preliminary site plans and elevation drawings have been submitted in support of the rezoning . The site plan illustrates a rearrangement of access and parking on the site. Two of the three curb cuts on Interlachen are proposed to be closed but existing access points on Vernon and Summit would be retained. Existing paved areas on the site would be arranged into 30 parking spaces. A schematic landscape plan is also included which proposes vegetation primarily along the street frontage. The footprint of the building would be expanded somewhat by "squaring off" the north side of the building . The proponent notes that this additional area would be used principally for trash storage. With the additional area, the total floor area of the building is approximately 6,360 square feet. The elevation drawings illustrate a general upgrading of the exterior of the building. The service station features would be eliminated and the exterior surfacing characterizing the hairdresser's portion of the building would be extended. The roof line would also be upgraded and a uniform exterior signage scheme would be provided. Mr. Hughes observed that although this is a rezoning case, the variance case which will accompany this matter cannot be ignored. The subject property is relatively small and irregularly shaped which contributes to the non -con- forming features of the existing building and accessory uses. Assuming approval of the requested rezoning to C-2, variances would be required for parking quantity, parking setback, drive aisle setback, and building setback along the westerly property line. The building, including the additional floor area, measures approximately 6,360 square feet. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 44-45 parking stalls would be required for this building if zoned C-2. Thirty spaces or about 2/3 of the requirement are proposed. It should be noted that one of the parking spaces appears to be located on the right of way of Vernon Avenue. Parking and drive aisle setbacks from Vernon and Interlachen rights of way are essen- tially non-existent. Although the site plan illustrates substantial landscaping to screen the parking, it appears that most plant material will be located on rights of way of Interlachen and Vernon which are controlled by the County. The County's policy is to prohibit landscaping on its rights of way. Thus, the landscape plan cannot be implemented as shown. Mr. Hughes explained that from a land use standpoint, Staff has dis- couraged the reuse of properties along Vernon for retail purposes. Staff's qoal has been to lessen, or avoid the appearance of a strip commercial district. The City has encouraged and continues to encourage prospective developers of the site to consider multiple residential housing as a first choice and office uses as a second choice for this property. The City does not have a conditional or special use permitting system, and the Council -has, on past occasions, discouraged such a system. Therefore, approval of a C-2 zoninq would allow any of the 95 principal uses specified in the Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 9 Zoning Ordinance for the C-2 District. Although some C-2 uses may be compatible from a parking standpoint, other uses would overburden the site. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff is of the belief that this property exhibits a number of problems which inhibit its use for commercial purposes. Although parking quantity is the primary problem, Staff also believes that the land use is not appropriate. The use of this building for a service station for many years does not result in a mandate to now rezone it to a different commercial district or to base a reuse on the existing floor area of the building. Staff also believes that the owner must recognize the limi- tations of the site and seriously consider the reuse for non -retail purposes with a reduced floor area. Staff would recommend denial of the requested rezoning with the suggestion that the Commission allow the proponent to amend his request to 0-1 Office District if he chooses to do so. In Staff's view, such a re- zoning to 0-1 should be conditioned on a plan which reduces the number of apparent variances caused by maintaining the present building. Staff would also prefer that the entire site, including the C-2 portion, should be zoned 0-1. The existing retail uses could continue as non -conforming uses in such a case. Mr. Ed Kodet, architect for the proponent explained that his client is requesting a rezoning of the property to upgrade the image of the site. He would be attempting to tie the building together by putting on a new fascia, adding built-in signs, identify the entry ways and add additional landscaping to the front of the structure. The garage doors will be removed as well as the qas tanks. Mr. Kodet stated that the retaininq wall in the rear of the site would be converted into four 30 inch deep storage areas with doors to conceal the contents. The fascia of the building would be extended to the wall as well. Mr. Greg Gustafson, attorney for the proponent explained that he was requesting a C-2 zoning as a down zoning from the C-4 zone. Upon discussions with the City, it was agreed that a gas station use for the site was undesirable. The City's recommendation for an 0-1 Office District zoning would not be as acceptable because it would eliminate the present uses on the site. Mr. Gustafson concluded by noting that the proposed plans will provide vast improvements to the site. It is agreed that a C-4 qas station is not a desirable use for the site, and the proponent is requesting a C-2 zoning to include the existing beauty shop and take-out restaurant in addition to the future tenants who will occupy the gas station space. He added that if the property were to be rezoned to 0-1, the site would be limited to only office use. General discussion ensued regarding the possibilities and future of an 0-1 zoning. Mr. Hughes explained that the comfort level and condition of the property is much more compatible to an 0-1 zoning. This zoning would bring the property closer to conformance with regard to the square footage and parking requirements. Community Development and Planning Commission September 2, 1981 Page 10 John Palmer moved denial of the rezoning request because of the variances required, adding the opinion of the Commission and Staff that an 0-1 zoning would be more suitable for the site. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, John Palmer, Leonard Ring and John Skagerberg voted aye; Gordon Johnson voted nay; the motion carried. S-81-11 Edina Office Center Second Addition. Generally located west of France Avenue and north of West 76th Street. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 5.3 acres in area and is zoned Planned Industrial District. The property is presently comprised of two platted lots. The easterly lot measures about two acres in area and is developed with a 13,000 square foot building. This building and its accessory parking occupy only about the southerly one half of the lot. The proposed subdivision requests a replat of the two lots whereby the northerly 192 feet of the westerly lot is combined with the easterly lot. The easterly lot would then measure about 3.9 acres in area and would constitute a new building. Staff has discovered that 15 feet of bituminous area for the building on the westerly lot is located on what is proposed to be the new lot on the north half. Staff initially understood that it was surplus paving placed over the property line; that is not the case. It is a row of parking associated with the westerly building. Staff would therefore suggest that the plat be modified to place the southerly property line of the new lot 25 feet further to the north, thus retaining the full amount of parkinq for the existinq building. Mr. Hughes noted that the 13,000 square foot existinq buildinq provides about 33 to 35 parking spaces. If it were an office use, 60 stalls would be required. Therefore, it is essential that this building retains all of its parking. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the transfer results in the westerly lot beinq reduced to approximately one acre. Planned Industrial lots are required to be two acres. Therefore, an approval of the replat should include a recom- mendation to grant a subdivision variance to allow the reduced lot area for Lot 1. In addition, the owner of Lot 1 must recognize that his use of the existing buildinq is limited to uses which can satisfy their parking and load- ing requirements by way of the existing parking lot. Staff recommends that an agreement be placed of record which acknowledges this fact and alerts future owners. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision subject to the dedication of necessary right of way for France Avenue and West 76th Street. Mr. Bob Worthington, of Rauenhorst Corporation explained the history of the property and presented the proposal that he noted would be compatible with the draft Comprehensive Plan. The proposed structure will be a flagship building which will tie in with the National Car Rental and the Edina Office Center, possessing the same aesthetics and good judgement in terms of design. The primary occupant of the building will be Xerox, occupying 30 to 350 of the space. The rest of the building will be speculative space which will probably be occupied by users comparable to those in the Edina Office Center. Community Development and Planning Commission, September 2, 1981 Paqe 11 In terms of the problems with the plat, Mr. Worthington stated that they are easily reconcilable. There are consenting parties involved and no problems should evolve. Mr. Worthington continued to note that an alternative solution could resolve the situation whereby the bituminuous area in question is moved south of the line, preserving the 20 displaced parking spaces by placing them along the northerly property line. Mr. Worthington pointed out that with this solution, no property readjustments would be necessary, thus he felt it to be a more desirable plan. Following a general discussion, subject to Staff's recommendations and existing building be constructed so as Fernelius seconded the motion. James Gordon Johnson, David Runyan, John voted aye. Helen McClelland voted na, westerly lot being reduced in size. TN Ill. NEXT MEETING DATE: James Bentley moved for plat approval to the condition that the parking for the to provide for 36 parking spaces. Len Bentley, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Palmer, Leonard Ring and John Skagerberg r because she objected to the small north - ie motion carried. September 30, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. IV. ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 9OL-V . tk-- Z& Joyce G. Repya, Secretary