Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 08-31 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, David Runyan, Mary McDonald, John Skagerberg, John Palmer, Len Ring and John Bailey MEMBERS ABSENT: Helen McClelland and Phil Sked STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes , City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Linda Elsen, Secretary I• APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 27, 1983 ----- Len Ring moved for approval and John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-83-5 Johnson Building Co., R-1 Single Family District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. S-83-11 Preliminary Plat Approval of Edina Mills Mr. Gordon Hughes reported that the Commission and the Council considered preliminary plan for this property last spring. The Council granted preliminary rezoning approval to PRD -2 for a seven unit townhouse plan on February 28, 1983. The proponents have now returned with an overall development plan and are requesting final rezoning approval. The preliminary plat of the property has also been submitted. The overall development plan includes a site plan, landscape plan, grading plan and utility layout, and building elevations are required by Ordinance. Mr. Hughes expressed two concerns which must be addressed prior to recommending final approval. First, the utility which have been submitted do not adequately address storm water drainage. Staff believes that the potential for a drainage problem does exist and have asked the proponents to respond with a drainage plan. Such a plan, just recently submitted, is being studied by Staff. Secondly, the proposed landscaping plan relies heavily on retaining existing trees on the site. However, it is difficult to identify the trees which are being retained as to type, location and size and Staff requests the landscape plan be revised to show this information. Upon resolution of these problems, final rezoning approval should be conditioned upon final platting, subdivisior, dedication, and approval of sewer and water plans by the City of Minneapolis which will serve this project with these utilities. Mr. Bob Johnson and Mr. Mike Klein of Johnson Building Co were present. Mr. David Runyan wondered what the necessity of an island was for the northerly curb cut. Mr. Klein explained that they were attempting to save two or three trees. was a specific formula for the nest He asked if there t Hughes stated that for apartments parking for townhouses. Mr. outside stall is For townhouses, however, there is�no/steadfast rule, butrStaffed. generally requests guest stall to be located in front of each garage stall and also encourage some other surface parking be provided John Skagerberg moved for approval of the overall development plan and preliminary plat subject to Staff's recommendations. David Runyan seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. Z-79-10 Klodt Construction Co.; PRD -3 Plan Amendment Mr. Hughes noted that the Commission and Council reviewed and approved a plan amendment for the easterly one-half of this property earlier this year. This amendment proposed the construction of two condominium buildings containing 54 units. The plan amendment also proposed a substantial reduction in the size of the units. He explained that the proponents are now requesting a plan amendment for the westerly one-half of the site. This amendment proposed the construction of 29 townhouse units which would replace the three condominium buildings containing 35 units as originally approved. In order to maintain the original overall density for the site, the proponents are su condominium buildings on the easterly one-halfsting shouldhbe the increased from 54 units to 60 units. The plan for the westerly one-half shows five townhouse buildings which would be served by two driveways from Delaney Boulevard. Enclosed parking and surface parkin according to ordinance requirements. t are Provided setback requirements except for balconies Plan hcproject with the required 35 foot setback from the north Project into the y line. Th proponents have also submitted floor plans, elevation drawings landscape plans, grading and utility plan in support of the requested amendment. Mr. Hughes stated that the building footprint and exterior appearance of the two condominium buildings on the easterly one-half of the site remains unchanged. However, the size of the individual units has been decreased substantially. Mr. Hughes noted that the proposed townhouse plan represents a reasonable use of the westerly portion of the site. Such a use is complementary with the condominium development to the east and may provide a more desireable transition to low density uses to the west. As noted earlier, the project complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of the balcony setbacks on the north. Staff cannot find a reasons for a varaince from the setback requirement and suggest that the northerly building be modified to comply with the ordinance. The easterly portion of the site is unchanged since the Commission and Council approval last spring with the exception of the unit count and size. Staff again wishes to point out that some of these units provide a minimum of floor area. This is unusual for a condominium project in Edina. However the proposal responds to the Comprehensive Plan's goal of providing small unit sizes for the modest cost housing opportunities. Staff recommends approval of the requested plan amendment conditioned upon: 1. The submission of more complete utility plans. 2. A developer's agreement covering the utilities in the townhouse development. 3. The revision of the final plat of the property to reflect a townhouse subdivision of the westerly one—half of site. 4. A slight modification of the access drives to the townhouses to provide a larger turning radius for emergency vehicles. (This will not affect the placement of the buildings.) 5. The size classification for shademaster locust should be increase to 2 1/2 inches. Mr. Paul Klodt, Klodt Construction Co., was present. Mr. Nieland and Mr. Haglund, his associates, were also present. Mrs. Mary McDonald wondered if it would be a problem for the balonies to comply with the setback. It was noted that there would be no problem complying. John Palmer moved for approval of the amendment to the overall development plan. Len Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. ILI. NEW BUSINESS: Z-83-7 Johnson Building Co., 5212 Vernon Avenue South Lots 1, 2, 3, and 12, Block 1 Grandview Plateau C-2 Commerical District to PRD -5, Planned Residential District Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures 3.3 acres in area and is the present site of the Biltmore Motel, which contains 80 guest rooms and a restaurant with a capacity of about 100 seats. The property is presently zoned C-2, Commerical District. Adjoining the property to the west are six double bungalows. Across the street to the north is a double bungalow and a four unit building. Across the street to the south is a 50 unit apartment building. Across the street to the east is Jerry's shopping area. The proponents are requesting a rezoning to PRD -5 Planned Residential District to contruct an 84 unit condominium building on the site which equates to 24 units per acre. The proposed building is four stories above an underbuilding parkin which is partly above and partly below g garage underbuildin grade. Approximately 1.4 g parking spaces and .5 surface spaces per dwelling unit are proposed. The project appears to conform to the setback requirements of the Ordinance with the exception of the surface parking in the front yard setback. Mr. Hughes stated that the proponents are also requesting the vacation of a portion of the right of way adjacent to Vernon Avenue, which was originally provided for a service drive but never constructed. This would add about 9,000 square feet to t" site. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for Mixed Uses. The Plan defines Mixed Uses as development containing office, multiple residential and accessory commerical uses. The Plan also encourages the reuse of commercial buildings for multiple residential purposes particularly within the Grandview commerical area. Mr. Hughes believes that the reuse of this property for multi -family housing is highly desirable and conforms with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. The high density residential development is appropriate because: I. The site adjoins a minor arterial roadway; 2. The site is in close proximity to shopping and other related services; 3. The development represents a reuse of a potentially high density, commerical property. However, the basic question to be addressed is the precise density and height which should be permitted. The Comprehensive Plan notes that the height and density should be based on proximity to low density uses and transportation capacities. Mr. Hughes reported that the proposed development will generate approximately 570 trips per day assuming 8 trips per unit per day. This generation will not impact the level of service of Vernon Avenue, however it could lead to signalization at the instersection of Vernon and the projection driveway and Link Road. He noted that the present C-2 zoning would most likely generate a larger traffic count. Mr. Hughes pointed out a change in the proposed plans to allow an exit -out onto Vernon instead of 53rd Street by Johnson Building Co. in an attempt to satisify requests from concerned neighbors. However, this attempt could possibly increase the traffic onto 53rd and other residential streets by those travelers trying to head north to Interlachen Boulevard. The Staff felt the four story height was appropriate for this development, but felt the lot coverage would be improved if reduced to 25% from the 28% as proposed. This could be achieved by reducing the unit sizes. Another possibility, would be to consider a five story element. With these modifications, Mr. Hughes recommended preliminary rezoning approval conditioned upon an acceptable overall development plan and final plat. Mr. Bob Johnson and Mr. Mike Klein were present to answer questions. Mr. Gordon Johnson wondered if there would be a curb cut in the center isle to allow the northbound exiters onto Vernon Mr. Hughes noted that the travelers would have to first head south into the left turn lane and make a "U" turn on 53rd or possibily take a left onto Eden Avenue if there are heading to Highway 100, Mr. John Skagerberg wonder was the distance was from the exit to 53rd Street was. Mr. Klein answer 50 feet. He also noted that the exit onto Vernon would first have to be approved by Hennepin County. Mr. Klein stated that if over, the lot coverage would be brought down to 25% by reducing the building size. Mr. John Bailey pointed out that there would be added traffic problems because of the already congested Jerry's area. Mr. Hughes suggested that this would be lessened by a traffic signal. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, noted that it was not likely that Hennepin County would allow a curb cut onto Vernon. He felt a traffic signal might be likely. Dolores Nelson, 5132 William Avenue, wondered if there have been any other proposals for this location. Mr. Hughes answered there have been none within the last ten years. Ms. Nelson did not feel this was a very good buffer. She thought perhaps -townhouses or fourplexes which could be more appropriate. Mr. Wallace Johnson, 5338 Sherwood Rd., felt that the building itself did not matter. He was concerned with the snow removal and traffic problem which would be hazardous to the neighborhood children. Mrs. Jeffery Anderson, 5124 William Avenue, stated that the Jerry's traffic was too much, and would come directly into the residential area. John Skagerberg wondered what the present Biltmore traffic was like. It was noted that the traffic is somewhat light at the present time. Mrs. Anderson wondered how many guest parking spaces are allowed for the proposed project. Mr. Hughes reported 48 surface stalls and 120 garage stalls, which complies with the City's requirements. One of the neighbors mentioned that at a neighborhood meeting between Johnson Building Co., and themselves, a plan to have the inside traffic circle exit from the main entrance had been discussed. What was the status of this plan? Mr. Klein replied that it has been eliminated because of the limited insic space they were working with. Mrs. Anderson stated she would prefer the traffic inside the project rather than on the residential streets. Mrs. Mary McDonald wonder how often 53rd Street was presently used. Mr. Phil Johnson, 5140 Bedford Avenue, explained that they used it less and less because of the traffic delay when attempting to get onto Vernon. Mr. Runyan noted that the signalization would help that and Bill Lewis commented that it would still cause a large backup. Mr. Bob Johnson noted that the neighborhood meeting was an attempt to receive feed back from the neighbors. He is willing to comply with the neighbors and the City however they can. Mr. Jeff Elaysky, 5104 William Avenue, reported that he only found out about the meeting on the very day. He felt this did not display a sincere concern for the neighbors. He foresaw the proposed project only as an aggravation to an already serious traffic problem and stated that there were too many units proposed. Mr. Ron Cohen, 5213 Ridgewood Drive, president of Ridgewood Hills Association, requested that the City or the proponents evaluate the traffic intersections and report to the neighbors the effects the new project would have. Mr. George Frey, 5222 Grandview Lane, stated that people cannot stop progress. He noted that he uses 53rd Street frequently. Mr. Harry Stanko, 5101 Bedford Avenue, had no objections to the building itself, but objected to the increasing traffic problem. Mr. Bob Bryant, 5101 William, wondered if 53rd Street could be closed off. Mr. Hoffman thought a traffic light would be installed at that intersection. Mr. Bryant noted that this would not stop the traffic from coming into the residential area. Mr. Frey suggested a stop sign be placed on Grandview going south. Ms. Ellen Olson, 5108 William Avenue, thought they would be seeing alot of traffic coming through the alleys. She was concerned for the safety of the neighborhood's children. Mr. Bryant asked if only one exit was possible. Discussion ensued regarding a traffic study of the neighborhood. Mrs. McDonald commented that there was a time factor involved because the property was for sale, a commercial project could purchase it and building without addressing the Planning Commission. Mr. Palmer noted that the present plans could be approved subject to such a study. He, therefore, moved _for approval of the preliminary rezoning conditioned upon resolution of the traffic concerns through—out the project. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. . Mr. Palmer recommended the City hire a traffic consultant. Mr. Bailey suggested that the whole area on a larger scale should be analyized. However, upon discussion it was decided to focus on the proposed project area. All were in favor of the motion; the motion carried. p/n► �.�J� U S-83-9 Peterson Replat of Lot 3, Block 1, Indian Hills [ V Mr. Hughes stated the subject property measures res 92,200 square feet in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling g Approximately 29,000 square feet of this property is located within the bed of Arrowhead Lake. The property is developed with a single family dwelling which is centrally located on the lot. The proponent is requesting a subdivision of the property to create one new buildable lot which would be located westerly of the existing dwelling. The new lot would measure about 19,000 square feet in area (exclusive of water) and about 90 feet in width. The proposed lot line is located 10 feet from the northwesterly corner of the existing dwelling. Due to the height of this dwelling, it appears that this setback would have to be increased to conform with ordinance requirements. This would result in a decrease in the proposed width of the new lot. The Commission may recall that a subdivision of a lot located approximately 700 feet west of the subject property was considered about four years ago. This subdivision, entitled Pat Moore's 1st Addition was denied by the City Council. Mr. Hughes noted the subdivision exhibits the same characteristics which led the City Council to a denial of Pat Moore's 1st Addition in 1979. Although the new lot exceeds the mininium requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, this neighborhood should not be subject to minimum standards. He noted some reasons for which the Council denied Pat Moore's 1st Addition which also applied to the proposed subdivision: Indian Hills Road clearly forms a logical dividing line in the vicinity of the Subject Property between large lot subdivisions to the north and subdivisions with relatively small lots to the south. Property owners in the vicinity of the Subject Property should have the right to rely upon the existing plat of the area and should rightly presume that any modification or replatting of said plat will be suitable and compatible with surrounding properties. The approval of the Proposed Subdivision could establish a precendent encouraging the replatting of lots in areas adjoining the Subject Property which would adversely alter the character and symmetry of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hughes noted in closing that a Mr. and .Mrs. Carlander, 6800 Indian Hills Rd., had telephoned him and were unable to attend the meeting. However, they were in favor of the subdivision request. Mrs. Peterson spoke to the Commission. She explained that she and her husband had lived in their home for the last 36 years. Subdivision proceedings had begun earlier this year by her husband, however, he passed away in July and she was continuing the process herself. She noted the strong emotional ties to the house and the neighborhood and commented that the subdivision would allow a new home in which she would live, while her son would occupy the present dwelling. Mrs. Peterson reported that she had spoken with the surrounding neighbors: 16 people are in favor of the plans and 4 people do not approve, but will not oppose the Petersons. She pointed out that it was a unique neighborhood with homes facing in many different directions. She felt due to the lot size, this additional home would not be extremely noticeable. She closed in saying if the subdivision were approved she would be happy to work with the City in order to make the house plans compatible with the City's requirements. Mr. Mark Peterson made the following comments in answer to the Staff report: 1. Although much of the property is located under water, it is not unlike all the surrounding properties. 2. It was indicated that the proposed lot was 19,000 square feet, however, including the part that is underwater it is closer to 30,000 square feet, which is how other lots are measured. 3. The lot line was drawn by the surveyor and would be willing to move it if the Commission requested so. 4. The Pat Moore's 1st Addition was not a similar case. It was a much smaller lot of only 15,000 square feet and there were 8 people in opposition of the proposal at the time. He noted that the Moore's were subdividing and ,selling for profit. He was interested in his mother's emotional health and her desire to stay in the neighborhood. The present dwelling was too large in size and financial responsibility for her. Therefore, each case should be viewed on its own facts. 5. The symmetry of the neighborhood would not be altered from their standpoint. There will be no trees removed and the house will be built into the side of the hill. The lot is the second or third largest in the neighborhood and there is plenty of room for subdivision. They was no indication of problems with the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Peterson offered exhibits of support letters from the neighbors along with a list of those people that were contacted. He noted that there were no objections. Mr. Brian Peterson commented on the "close-knit" neighborhood. He noted that in growing up in the neighborhood, the surrounding openness was always appreciated by his family. The family had no intention of sacrificing this. He assured the Commission that the new home would fit well within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Smith, 6500 Mohawk Trail, noted that he was a builder and developer. He signed the letter of approval but wanted to note some areas of concern to be considered. The new home would completely block the Smith's view of the lake, especially due to the elevation on the lot. If the home were built into the hill, there should be no problem. Another curb cut may not necessarily be appropriate on a street with many blind corners and sometimes fast traffic. Also, because of the setback from the water, there is a very limited space to work with. These points should all be considered. Mr. Orrin Haugen, 6512 Indian Hills Dr. commented that the subdivision should be approved because it would not be inconsistent with the manner in which the rest of the neighborhood has been developed. He felt it was a gradual slope and the home would fit nicely. He challenged any traffic problem because of speeding vehicles. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Haugen if he believed the neighborhood's attitudes were changing to allow subdivisions of these larger parcel or if this was a unique situation. Mr. Haugen felt that this was a unique situation due to the size of the lot and the manner in which it would be located. Upon Mr. Gordon Johnson's questioning, Mrs. Peterson assured that they were willing to work with Mr. Smith to find a solution to his concerns in developing the property. Mr. Runyan commented on the difficulty of the situation. He noted the loyalty of the neighbors and the emotion involved for all. He explained that the Commission worked at preventing the deterioration of neighborhoods in similar cases; but added that perhaps this was a unique situation and should be considered on individual merits. Mrs. Peterson noted that 35 years was a long time to preserve the large parcel of land. In addition, the size and shape would make the subdivision less noticeable. Mr. Runyan agreed. Mr. Palmer mentioned that the lack of symmetry is somewhat appealing for the Indian Hills area and possibly this itself was a reason for approval. He moved for approval of the subdivision. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. Z-83-8 Kenneth (Chip) Glaser PID, Planned Insutrial District to PC -2, Planned Commerical District S-83-10 Glaser's Addition to Edina Mr. Hughes told the Commission that the subject property measures 2.75 acres in area and is zoned PID, Planned Industrial District. The easterly one-third of the property is improved with an office building which is occupied by Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan. The westerly two-thirds of the property is vacant. East of the property is a service station and restaurant. South of the property is the Radisson South. north and across the street is the First Southdale Bank. To the northwest and southwest are office and office warehouse .uses.the The proponents are requesting a rezoning to PC -2, Planned Commerical District for the property which would facilitate the construction of a 15,000 square foot building on the westerly portion of the site. About 60% of this building would be occupied by three, complementary fast food restaurants which would share seating facilities. The remainder of the building would be occupied by unspecified retail uses. Based upon the floor area of the proposed building and the seating capacity of the restaurant (about 120) seats, 110 parking spaces are provided on the property which complies with ordinance standards. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponents have also included the Minnesota Federal building and lot in their petition for rezoning at Staff's suggestion because 1.) the parcel occupied by Minnesota Federal is below the minimum lot size for PID lots; and 2.) a finanacial institution is more appropriately zoned PC -2 rather than PID. Also requested is a lot subdivision of the property to separate the reatil site from the Minnesota Federal parcel. Staff believes the proposed use will provide a needed service facility for the adjacent office and industrial district and that the site is appropriate for the retail uses due to its proximity to adjoining commerical uses and collector and arterial streets. The Comprehensive Plan shows this site as a potential commerical site. Mr. Hughes recommended preliminary rezoning approval conditioned upon acceptable final development plans and final" platting. Final platting is subject to subdivision dedication. Mr. Chip Glaser and Mr. Peter Jarvis were present to answer any questions. Mr. Jarvis told the Commission that Dairy Queen would occupy one of"the restaurant spaces along with a chicken and a bakery type restaurant in the other two spots. A travel agency and beauty shop would also be located in this one story structure. He displayed plans of the project for the Commission and noted that upon approval, construction would begin this fall. Mr. Gordon Johnson wondered if there was a curb cut across -from Metro Boulevard and Mr. Jarvis noted that it was straight across, would be located from Metro Boulevard. Gordon Johnson moved for rezoning and preliminary plat approval subject to subdivision dedication. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried. LD -83-6 Clark Construction, LD -83-7 Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Gleason Court Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting party wall divisions for double bungalows which are under construction on the subject lots and recommended approval. Mr. Palmer moved for approval and Len Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -83-8 Halley Land Corp Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Oak Ridge of Edina Mr. Hughes stated that the proponents are requesting simple lot division in order to relocate the common lot line between Lots 5 and 6, which are both vacant. The lot division would increase the width of Lot 5 by five feet and decrease the width of Lot 6 by a like amount. This request would allow the construction of a particular house design on Lot 5 without the need for variance. lot 6 continues to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and will retain adequate space for a dwelling. Mr. Hughes recommended approval; however, pointed out that the owner of Lot 6 should be cautioned that Staff will be very reluctant to recommend approval of a variance for Lot 6 which would be necessitated by the reduction of lot width causer' by this division. Mr. Runyan moved for approval and Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment and Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned. Li da Elsen, Secretary