Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 06-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M. EDI NA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chariman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, John Skagerberg and James Bentley MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson, Len Fernelius, Mary McDonald, John Palmer and Leonard Ring STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Harold Sand, Assistant Planner Joyce Repya, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Community Development and Planning Commission - June 2, 1982 James Bentley moved for approval of the minutes from June 2, 1982. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - June 18, 1981, July 16, 1981 and July 28, 1981 Due to the lack of a motion, the minutes will be continued for approval until the July 28th meeting. 11. OLD BUSINESS: Z-81-8 Prime Development Corporation. R-1 to POD -1 Planned Office & District. S-81-13 Prime Professional Center Addition. Generally located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the preliminary plans for this rezoning were reviewed and approved on June 2, 1982. The City Council granted development plans and is requesting final rezoning approval. The overall develop- ment plans include elevation drawings, a final site plan, and preliminary utility layouts. A preliminary plat has also been submitted which illustrates a townhouse type subdivision of the site. At preliminary approval, the proponent asked that parking be required on a floor area basis rather than on a per doctor basis as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Since that time, the proponent has advised Staff that they are now agreeable to providing parking on a per doctor basis and will thus regulate the tenancy of the buildings accordingly. Staff accepts the preliminary estimate of one doctor per 1,000 square feet for purposes of estimating parking demand. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff recommeded the following modifications to the overall development plans: 1. Rear elevations of the building should be illustrated. Staff expressed concern regarding the apprearance of the development from perimeter streets at the time of preliminary approval. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 2 2. Central trash storage facilities should be illustrated. The ordinance requires complete enclosure of dumpsters. 3. All parking spaces should be delineated on the plans. 4. The plans illustrate required 35 foot setbacks from the streets. However, setbacks scale at 32± feet. This should be corrected. 5. Either separate sewer and water services should be provided for each unit or one service and one meter per building should be provided. The plans appear to indicate one service per building that would then be individually metered for each unit. 6. Catch basins and storm sewer should be installed to drain the parking lot. The following modifications to the plat were suggested: 1. The individual lots should_ maintain a 35 foot setback from the frontage road. Twenty feet is shown. This modification is requested to prevent individual lot owners from construction improvements on their lots:which violate setback requirements. 2. The plat illustrates two "expansion lots," i.e. lots 35 and 36. These lots should be deleted and incorporated into their abutting lots if an expansion potential is desired. If they remain as shown, they could be developed with additional units which would not be desirable in Staffs view due to access, location and size problems. 3. Lot 37 should be an outlot. With these modifications, Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Final rezoning is conditioned on final platting. 2. Subdivision dedication. Outlot C should be dedicated to. the City and should constitute a credit toward the overall dedication requirement. 3. A developer's agreement for sewer and water mains on the site. Ease- ments must also be provided for these utilities. Mr. Hughes continued to explain that prior to the meeting the proponent submitted new plans that addressed most of the modifications suggested by Staff. The only outstanding item remaining on the zoning plans is a rear elevation. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Commission proceed with approval for final zoning purposes with the understanding that the rear elevations are provided prior to the Council hearing. From the platting standpoint, Mr. Hughes stated that all modifications suggested were addressed in the new plans. Responding to a question regarding which Outlots would be dedicated, Mr. Hughes explained that Staff now suggests that only Outlot D on the new plan is dedicated. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 3 Hugh Maynard, attorney for the proponent- further explained that his client has a purchase agreement to buy all the property, including that which is north and east of the frontage road. Mr. Lindbery, -the seller has asked that he be given an easement over what is now Outlot C. . Consequently, at closing, Prime Development will own fee title to Outlots B, C and D; Mr. Lindbery will keep an easement for driveway purposes; and Outlots D and possibly Outlot B would be available for dedication to the City. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Runyan regarding the placement of the mechanical systems, Ron Erickson, architect with Korsunsky, Krank and Erickson explained that each unit will have its own forced air furnace. No roof top equipment is planned because of the appearance of the buildings and the need to have access to all the roofs. He added that all gas and water meters will be placed in a landscaped area in front of the buildings. Following a brief discussion, Helen McClelland moved for approval subject to Staffs conditions. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Ill. NEW BUSINESS: Z-82-4 Marshall Everson. R-1 to PRD -3 and HPD, Planned Residential District and Heritage Preservation District. 7000 Cahill'Road. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of W. 70th Street and Cahill Road. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the site measures 2. 11 acres in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. The Old St. Patrick's Church is located on the easterly portion of the site. This building is now vacant, but was used in recent years for a private school operated by the proponent. The site is bordered by 70th Street on the north, Cahill Road on the east and Village Drive on the south. Cahill Elementary School adjoins the site on the west. The site is characterized by level topography and contains many mature oak trees on the easterly portion of the site. This site has been studied extensively by the Heritage_ Preservation Board. Based upon the reasons stated in the Board's April 27th staff report to the Commission, and the other research, the Board has recommended that this site and the existing structure on the site should be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District (HPD). Mr. Hughes explained that the Heritage Preservation District is an "overlay" district, i.e. it does not alter the basic land use zoning district of the site, but rather imposes additional restrictions to protect its unique historical, arch- itectural, and/or cultural characteristics. If zoned HPD, permits from the Heritage Preservation Board would then be required for alterations which could affect the building or site. In connection with the rezoning to HPD, the proponent is also requesting a change in the basic underlying zoning classifications. He has petitioned for a rezoning to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. In accordance with ordinance requirements, preliminary plans have been submitted. These plans illustrate a Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 4 22 unit condominium building which would be two stories in height. The existing structure would be preserved and possibly retro -fitted as an amenity building and could possibly contain guest quarters for visitors. The proposed condominium complies with setback requirements and other provisions of the ordinance. One and one half under building garage stalls per unit and .75 exposed stalls are provided. Although elevation drawings are not required for preliminary approval, plans have been submitted which illustrate that the condominium will closely match the architectural style of the existing building. Mr. Hughes observed that from a density standpoint, the proposed development represents approximately 102 units per acre which is consistent with the S - 12 unit per acre range specified by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density is somewhat higher than other recent developments in the vicinity which were evaluated in light of the density reduction formula. This formula would yield an allowed density of 82 units per acre or a total of 18 units for the site. The additional density which is requested represents a bonus for the preservation of the existing structure on the site.. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff believes the proponent's effort to respond to the historic characteristics of the site is commendable. The existing building is preserved and the proposed condominium is carefully designed to respect the architectural style of the existing building. Mr. Hughes reported that the Heritage Preservation Board recommended that the subject property and building should be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District. This zoning should occur regardless of the final disposition of the rezoning to PRD -3. Although final drawings are not available at this time, the Board recommended approval of the preliminary zoning plans with the under- standing that detailed drawings will be submitted for their review prior to final PRD -3 rezoning. The Board anticipated that the final drawings will be based upon the preliminary plans which indicate a building form and materials sympath- etic to the existing building. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Satff believes that the rezoning to PRD -3 complies with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved with the following conditions: 1. Final zoning is conditioned upon acceptable overall development plans and a final plat. 2. An additional five foot right of way must be dedicated along Village Drive. 3. Subdivision Dedication. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that the final issue concerns the allowed density on the site. The Heritage Preservation Board noted that if a density bonus is granted, a portion of this bonus should represent a reward for preserving the building and the remaining portion should be a reward for utilizing the remainder of the site in a sympathetic manner. A one unit per acre credit for each of these two aspects would result in the 102 unit per acre density which is requested. It should also be emphasized that such a density is still below the 12 unit per acre maximum specified by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 5 Responding to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Hughes explained that the rationale behind the condition requiring an additional five foot right of way along Village Drive comes from the fact that Village Drive is a 40 foot right of way which is less than normally required. Consequently, the space from the right of way to the curb is only 5 feet and has a 4 to 5 foot retaining wall. Staff would like an extra 5 feet dedicated for utility purposes, potential sidewalk or snow storage area. Helen McClelland asked for clarification of Staffs opinion that the building can not be removed from the site and preserved elsewhere. Mr. Hughes explained that the building on that site is important. The building off of the site is not as important. Whether the City would ultimately concede to relocating the building is difficult to speculate, but Staff recommends that both the building and the site be considered together. Mr. Tom Martinson, a member of the Heritage Preservation Board explained to the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Board has been asked by the community and church to stress the preservation of the building. Preservation is generally an exterior issue. Mr. Martinson pointed out that Mr. Everson, the owner of the property has been very cooperative with the Board. While the Board does not involve itself with zoning issues, they felt that Mr. Everson should be given a premium from the density standpoint for all the work he has ,gone through regarding preserving the site. Under normal circumstances, the site could offer about 8 units per acre. The Board felt that there should be an informal play between 8 and a maximum of 12 units per acre; 1 for saving the site; and 1 for trying to deal with the issues of imagery. Discussion ensued regarding the possibilities and procedures of moving the building from the site. Question was raised as to whether there would be any further developmental rights on the site if the building were removed. Harold Sand explained that the City's ordinance provides a hearing process for Heritage Preservation permits to make any kind of alterations to the building. If the developer would choose to raise the building, the Heritage Preservation Board would consider the request within 60 days. The Board could reject the permit, afterwhich the developer could appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. That decision could be further appealed to the City Council. Ultimately, the Council would make a decision. If they determined that the building should not be torn down, then it would not be torn down. Regarding the issue of further developmental rights, Mr. Hughes explained that the zoning on this property would be governed by an overall development plan. That plan, which would show a 22 unit building and an amenity building would have to be amended to allow for any changes. Mrs. Donna Skagerberg, representing the Historical Society advised the Commission that the Society has been very impressed with the cooperation they have received from Mr. Everson in the efforts to preserve a very important historical site in Edina. She then briefly explained the historical significance of the site, pointing out that it is the only building left in the Cahill District which is one of the two districts that were the beginnings of Edina in the 1850's. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 6 Helen McClelland then moved for approval of the Heritage Preservation District rezoning. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Mr. McClelland also moved for approval of the PRD -3 Planned Residential District rezoning for the reasons stated by Staff and subject to Staffs conditions. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. 5-82-2 Zamansky Addition. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of West 66th Street and T. H. 100. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that they had reviewed and approved a proposed lot division for the subject property at the June 2, meeting. This division was considered by the Council on June 7, 1982. The Council contin- ued the matter and expressed concern that the parcel being acquired by Mr. Zamansky could be considered buildable in the future, eventhough street frontage was not provided. To resolve this concern, Mr. Zamansky has agreed to plat this parcel as an outlot. Such outlots are not developable until further platted into lots and blocks. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff recommends approval of the plat. Following a brief discussion, John Skagerberg moved approval of the plat. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -82-6 Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Cleveland's Subdivision, Parkside Replat. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponents are requesting a simple lot division whereby the south 10 feet of Lot 1 is transferred to Lot 2. Setback requirements continue to be met and Staff recommends approval. David Runyan moved for approval. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Permit Interim Uses of Certain Public School Buildings in the R-1 District. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that this item was discussed at the last meeting. At that time, it was decided that an institutional zoning approach to the situation was not desirable; rather a special use permitting system in addition to the permitted R-1 uses would be more appropriate. Referring to the proposed amendment, Mr. Hughes explained that he had compiled a listing of interim uses which the City and schools agree are relatively temporary because of certain problems with demographics,and they ought to be allowed by way of right. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the proposed interim uses are good for only as long as the school owns the property and can not be transferred by a deed or lease for more than a determined number of years. (The city attorney has recommended a period of 3 years) . The amendment also indicates that interim uses can't extend beyond a certain anniversary date (persumable in the range of 5-10 years). Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 7 Mr. Hughes observed that many of the uses specified in the amendment area already located in Edina East, Highlands and Wooddale schools. By means of the amendment, the City will be able to limit the activities to those traditionally seen in closed school facilities. Mr. Hughes pointed out that in order to control the size of the uses in a particular building, an occupancy limitation could be set on a percentage basis. Administrative offices for private, non-profit organizations and counseling services are examples of. those services which should be limited to a certain per- centage (possibly 30-35%) of the entire floor area of the school building. Any occupancy beyond the designeated limited percentage would require the acquistion of a special use permit. Similarly, a special use permit would be required for evening operations. Helen McClelland also asked if Staff had considered the possible use of schools for Senior Citizen residences. With regard to Mrs. McClelland's first comment, Mr. Hughes stated that he agreed that better definitions were needed throughout the amendment. Relating to Mrs. MClelland's concerns about the possibilities of Senior Citizen residential uses, Mr. Hughes stated that Staff left out any housing elements intentionally because it is felt that would be a permanent use. He added that such housing considerations should only be handled through the City's normal rezoning process. Mr. Hughes concluded by pointing out that Staff would recommend the Commis- sion pass this amendment on to the City Council for review. Discussion ensued regarding the specified time limits within section (iii) Termination of Interim Uses. The Board generally agreed that they would prefer to see a limitation of 3 years to be set upon a lease for public school buildings or property which is transferred to private ownership or disposed of. Further discussion ensued regarding the percentage of building which could be occupied by a single tenant. The reasoning behind limiting the -percentage would be to avoid the possibility of having a one or two tenant building. Mr. Hughes explined that the main concerns center around parking, traffic and the impact upon surrounding neighborhoods. He added that by setting the percentage limit, the amendment would not state that anything in excess would not be allowed, however the potential tenant would have to file a conditional use permit to prove that their use would work. The Board agreed that 35% would be reasonable figure to work with. With respect to the length of time an interim use would be allowed, Del Johnson stated that he felt 10 years was too long a period of time due to changing demo- graphics. He added that 7 years seemed more appropriate. The Commission gener- ally agreed with Mr. Johnson that no interim use should be allowed following the 7th anniversary of the closing of the school. David Runyan moved for approval of the amendment subject to the following conditions:1.in the event that any public school building or the land upon which it is located is disposed of or transferred to private ownership by deed, contract for deed, lease for more than 3 years, or by other means, all interim uses shall cease and the building shall then be used for only principal and accessory uses allowed by the Zoning Ordinance; 2. no interim use shall be allowed following the 7th anniver- sary of the closing of the shcool; 3. administrative offices for private, non-profit Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 8 organizations and counseling services which in aggregate occupy 35% or more of the gross floor area of the building shall only be allowed subject to the grant of a conditional use permit. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 28, 1982 V. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, rl-� -,�& Aovol-,- Joyce G. Repya, Planning Secretary