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