Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 02-24 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, David Runyan and John Skagerberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary McDonald, James Bentley and Leonard Fernelius STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: David Runyan moved for approval of the minutes from the December 30, 1981, meeting. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Il. OLD BUSINESS: Z-80-3 Winfield/Laukka. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to MD -5 Mixed Development District. Generally located west of York Avenue and south of West 76th Street. Mr. Peter Jarvis of BRW explained to the Commission that he would present a comparison of the project as it is today versus where it was when it was last presented to the Planning Commission in April of 1981. Among the changes that have taken place, a decision was made to reduce the amount of underground parking on the office side of the project for financial reasons. Instead of the originally proposed three underground levels, there will now be two underground levels. The publically enclosed park has been reduced to half its original size. And the project is now proposed to be developed in three phases instead of four. Mr. Jarvis added that the resi- dential area on the northerly 2/3 of the site will remain essentially unchanged from the April 1981 plans. Mr. Jarvis pointed out that the office space proposed for the project has been reduced from 500,000 square feet to 445,000 square feet. With regards to the enclosed public park, Mr. Jarvis explained that the initially proposed 90,000 square foot park has been reduced to about 45,000 'square feet which much better approximates the 4 to 4Z million dollar construc- tion budget. He then reviewed the amenities that would be included within the park, i.e. amphitheater, 2 tot lots (indoor/outdoor), a multi-purpose court, turf area, and a golf area. There will also be an interior connection to the residential units. Describing Phase 1 of the project, Mr. Jarvis explained that the office building south of the park will be a 4 story terraced building (5 stories from grade, i.e. the park) consisting of 107,000 square feet. The park cover will _ be integrated with the Phase I office building. Community Development and Planning Commission February 24, 1982 Page 2 Phase I of the residential units will include the two buildings north of the park. The ultimate number of units will depend upon the unit dis- tribution which will not be finally fixed until a pre -sale mode is entered into. Presently, 160 units include 25% studio /efficiency units, 50% one bedroom and 25% two bedroom units. The structures have been designed to allow for a great deal of flexibility with regards to being able to inter- change 2 studio units into a 2 bedroom unit. Mr. Jarvis explained that by going to 3 phases and because of the changed building configuration, at the conclusion of Phased, the entire north and south boundries to the park will be completed. There will be one solid development that could stand on its own. From both the City's and the developer's standpoint, at the conclusion of Phase I, if the interest rates go sky high and there is a one or two year delay before starting Phase 11, there will be a clean, completed looking statement with no unfin- ished edges all the way around. Addressing the park for Phase I, Mr. Jarvis explained that there will be 1 full level of underground public parking at the same grade as the park. Below this level there will be an identical parking level under the office buildings. There will also be 600+ spaces underneath the residential. buildings. Responding to an inquiry regarding the financing for the project, Mr. Jarvis explained that the private financing for the project has not been completed. Mr. Rick Martens, of Winfield Developments added that presently, the market is very tough, however the project is very exciting. It is a quality project with unique opportunities and something special to offer the market place. A package has been compiled which will be used to solicit the financing and probably within 60-90 days, that will be done. Mr. Jarvis also pointed out that the larger the project, the higher the possibility of financing. From a national perspective, mixed use developments are probably the easiest to get financed with the major institutions. David Runyan asked what was presently proposed for the office building on the east end of the project (the flagship building) . Mr. Jarvis explained that the building is proposed to be 20 stories tall. Another addition that has been made over the plan presented in April 1981, is the addition of 3 top stories of luxury condominiums (24 units) on top of the 17 stories of office space. He added that these luxury condos may never come to be, however, they will be independent of the equity participation program being proposed for the other residential units. If the luxury condomiums are not built, the office building will remain at 17 stories, all to be built in Phase III of the development. Mr. Jarvis observed that the number of residential units to be built on the site is not firmly set at 600 units. If the marketing proves a greater demand for 2 bedroom units than efficiencies or 1 bedrooms, then a lesser number of units (perhaps 580 or 575) will be constructed. Asked if that would make a difference to the City, Mr. Hughes explained that from a planning standpoint, the reduction in the number of units would not be a problem. However, it would make a difference from an HRA standpoint. Due to the equity participation involved, the HRA would prefer to see that the original count of 600 units be maintained. He added that building fewer units would probably mean building fewer assisted units, and providing the assisted units is the HRA's role. Community Development and Planning Commission February 24, 1982 Page 3 Regarding the construction schedule, Mr. Jarvis explained that they are projecting to begin August 1, 1982, on the Phase I office building, the park and the 2 residential buildings. Discussion ensued regarding the flagship office building proposed for Phase III of the development. The height of the building being the prime concern. Several members of the Commission stated that the height of the building did not appear to present a problem when considering the location (bordering 1-494) . Ms. McClelland expressed concern with regard to the precedence that might be set by allowing a building of that height to be built in the City. Addressing the height issue, Mr. Hughes observed that in the Mixed Development District, the setbacks are considerably less than in the Office Building District. Consequently, a 20 story office building that is not in the Mixed Development District would have to maintain prohibitive setbacks in order to meet the ordinance requirements. John Palmer stated that he was not offended by the proposed height of the flagship building and felt that the developer should not be punished for future proposals that could happen. He added that the height of the building works well with the rhythm and proportion of the project. Del Johnson agreed with Mr. Palmer and moved for approval of the rezoning to Mixed Development District -5. John Palmer seconded the motion. Upon voting, Del Johnson, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, David Runyan and John Skagerberg voted aye. None voted nay. Gordon Johnson and Helen McClelland abstained; the motion carried. Ill. NEW BUSINESS: Z-82-1 One Corporate Center Phase 6. PID Planned Industrial District to 0-2 Office Building District. Generally located east of Ohms Lane and west of Metro Boulevard. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the subject subdivision was approval last summer. This project included eight townhousetype office buildings which were one and two stories in height. The project is now under construction. Staff has recently noted that a small portion of the property is actually zoned Planned Industrial District. The majority of the site is zoned 0-2 Office Building District. It had previously been assumed that the entire site was zoned O-2. Mr. Hughes pointed out that although the development under construction conforms with the requirements of the PID zone, Staff believes that it is advis- able to rezone this small parcel to 0-2 to make it consistent with the zoning for the balance of the property. This will prevent future questions concerning the conformance of this project to the Zoning Ordinance. The developer, Ryan Con- struction Co., has consented to this rezoning. Community Development and Planning Commission February 24, 1982 Page 4 Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff believes that this is strictly a housekeeping rezoning and recommended approval. Following a brief discussion, John Palmer moved for approval of the rezoning. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -82-1 Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail 4th Addition. Generally located east of County Road 18 and north of Valley View Road. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent is requesting a party wall division of the two family dwelling on the subject lot. Individual utility connections are provided and Staff would recommend approval. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the lot division. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -82-2 Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located west of Gleason Road and north of W. 78th Street. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent is requesting a party wall division of a recently constructed two family dwelling. Individual utility connections are provided and Staff would recommend approval. Del Johnson moved for approval of the lot division. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -82-3 Lot 10, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located west of Gleason Road and north of W. 78th Street. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent is requesting a party wall division of the two family dwelling on the subject lot. The proposed division would provide Parcel A with 4,482 square feet and Parcel B with 12,560 square feet. Parcel A is proposed to maintain a rear yard of only 5 feet. Individual utility connections are provided. The Commission discussed the division, stressing concern that Parcel A would have virtually no rear yard at all. Gordon Johnson moved that this item be continued until a more equitable division can be arranged. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 31, 1982 V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce G. Repya