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