Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 05-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, David Runyan, Helen McClelland, John Bailey, Phil Sked, Virginia Shaw, Len Ring, John Palmer and John Skagerberg STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner Harold Sand, Assistant Planner Linda Elsen, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 2, 1984 Mr. Palmer moved for approval to the minutes noting upon Staff's suggestion the addition that Gordon Johnson abstained regarding LD -84-8; Lot 4, Block 1, The Habitat. Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. The minutes were approved. II NEW BUSINESS: S-84-7 Indian Hills 2nd Addition. z-84-1 R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures 4.5 acres in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The property is now part of the Crossview Lutheran Church site which encompasses about 14 acres. The proponent requests the subdivision of the property into ten lots and the rezoning of the lots to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District. Nine of these lots would face McCauley Trail. The tenth is landlocked and presumably unbuildable. The nine proposed lots ranee in area from 15,050 square feet to 19,976 square feet. Staff finds four of the nine lots slightly below the 90 foot minimum lot width requirement and the other five exactly 90 feet. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that a major constraint to the development of this property is the presence of a wetland. This wetland has been classified as a "public water" by the State, and therefore, filling or alteration of this wetland is restricted and subject to the grant of a permit from the Deparment of Natural Resources. The proposed development will necessitate additional filling and it appears that the grading plan which has been submitted can be accomplished within the D.N.R.'s parameters. The proposed development appears feasible from a wetland's standpoint. The subject property is presently designated "quasi - public" by the Comprehensive Plan in that it is part of a church site. If the project is approved, the Plan should be amended to designate this property as "low density attached". Other properties which front on McCauley Trail are presently designated low density. Staff believes such a amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is logical and recommends the rezoning to R-2. However, Mr. Hughes stated some modifications to the subdivision are in order. Staff suggests the elimination of at least one lot which would increase the average lot width requirements to an average of 100 feet. The wetland on the site precludes full utilization of the depth of these lots and, thus, an adequate lot width is even more important. If the subdivision included only seven R-2 lots, the average width would be about 115 feet and would better accommodate the type of double bungelows built in this area. Lot 10 of the proposed subdivision is unbuildable due to lack of access and the presence of the wetland. He recommended that Lot 10 be eliminated and its area incorporated into the remaining lots. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission and those in attendance that a conditional use permit would be required for future expansion of any type on the property remaining in church ownership. Also, the church property is, in essence, part of this subdivision and, therefore, should be subject to normal platting requirements. The church building is not now connected to sanitary sewer. Such a sewer will be extended to serve the R- 2 lots. Plat approval should be conditioned upon connection to this sewer. South of the church building is large tract of land containing one dwelling. This property will likely be developed in future years. Staff recommends the westerly 34 feet of the church property be subject to a public road easement which when combined with a 16 foot strip of land adjoining the west side of the church property would create a feasible street right of way for future use. Based on Staff's proposed modifications, approval was recommended with the following conditions: 1. Subdivision dedication. 2. Developer's Agreement which includes the extension of sanitary sewer mains and the extension of a storm sewer. 3. Conservation Restriction covering the wetland area. During the course of construction, a snow fence erected to delineate the limits of grading is recommended. 4. Grant of easements to facilitate storm sewer extensions. 5. Grant of a D.N.R. permit. 6. Petition to install permanent street surfacing and curb and gutter on McCauley Trail West abutting the R-2 lots. Mr. Jeff Gustafson and Mr. Greg Gustafson, proponents, presented a revised subdivision proposal which illustrated eight lots and the division of the unbuildable Lot 10 of the previous proposal plus a small triangular piece of land as an outlot. They assured the Commission that they were request no variances on these parcels. Mrs. McClelland wondered if the proposed plans should be submitted to the Watershed District for review before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hughes explained that the wetland was classified as public water instead of a floodplain and, therefore, would be under the jurisdiction of the D.N.R. not the Watershed. Greg Gustafson stated that D.N.R. required them to approach the Planning Commission first. Mrs. McClelland was concerned that the doubles would be too,much structure for the lots because of their setback requirements. Greg Gustafson stated that doubles were the most practical proposal for the property. Fill would be necessary in order to comply with the setback requirements. The doubles would be smaller than the neighboring doubles in order to be level with the Crosstown Highway for appearance purposes. He noted that in response to Staff's recommendation for road access on the westerly side of the property, the Church would have to be consulted. Frank Matthews, 6400 Timber Ridge, expressed his approval of the development subject to the larger width recommendation. He pointed out a drainage problem on the easterly end of the proposed subdivision. Jeff Gustafson reported that in consulting the D.N.R. a ponding system has been recommended. He used visual aids to illustrate where three ponds with controlled gates would be located for the water which eventually drains into Arrowhead Lake. The ponding would encourage wildlife habitat. Greg Gustafson addressed the lift station and sewer connection issue stating that the funds received from the sale of the proposed lots was intended for church expansion to the east. Plans for the installation of a lift station had already been discussed. Woody Cater, 6316 Post Lane, stated that his objection was not in regards to the development, instead he objected to the 90 or 100 foot lot width. He believed that there was a setback problem and commented that he would like to see homes similar in quality to Ron Clark's development on Gleason Court. Greg Gustafson said although the homes they were proposing to construct were to be smaller; they would not be of lesser, quality. The sale of eight lots was necessary in order to cover the large cost of soil correction in order to make the homes fit within the setback requirements. Mrs. McClelland supported only six or seven lots and Mr. Lewis agreed. Mr. Palmer agreed with Staff's recommendation of seven lots. He moved for approval subject to all of Staff's recommendations and Mrs. Shaw seconded the motion. All were in favor; Mrs. McClellend obstained. The motion carried. S-84-8 Blake Woods. Generally located east of Dearborn Street and north Belmore Lane. Mr. Hughes indicated that the subject property measures 52,500 square feet in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The property is composed of three, existing R-1 lots which each measure 100 feet by 175 feet. These lots front on the unimproved northerly extension of Dearborn Street. The unimproved Spruce Road right of way adjoins the northerly boundary of the property. The proponent requests a replatting of the existing three lots into four new lots which would be arranged around a new cul de sac on Dearborn. This cul de sac would be located opposite the westerly extension of Dearborn Street as proposed by the plat of Miller Addition which was approved by the Comission on May 2, 1984. If the proposed cul de sacs were constructed as shown the northerly 100+ feet of the Dearborn right of way, as well as the Spruce Road right of way, could be vacated and incorporated into the proposed lots. The applicant also proposes to vacate the alley adjoining the east boundary of the property and likewise incorporate it into the proposed lots. Mr. Hughes reported that the proposed replatting depends on access to Miller Addition which relied upon the acquisition of right of way across lots on the Westside of Dearborn which were not owned by Millers. The City Council considered Miller Addition on May 21, 1984 and continued it until June 4, in order to consider the relationship between Miller Addition and the subject subdivision. Staff believes that if thiaiaccess is acquired, the proposed plat of Blake Woods, including the proposed right of way vacations, represents a reasonable replatting of the property and should be approved and that Miller Addition and Blake Woods represent the best approach from a planning standpoint. However, if access to the Miller addition is not acquired, some modifications to Blake Woods are needed. The existing access to Miller's property via Dearborn Street and Spruce Road must be preserved and therefore, no right of way should be vacated. If the City decides to improve Dearborn and Spruce to provide access for Miller, Staff believes that no cul de sac should be platted in Blake Woods, and instead the subject property should simply be replatted into four rectangular lots which front on Dearborn. He also mentioned as an alternative, access to Miller's from Harrison Avenue, to the West, was a possibility. If accomplished, Blake Woods could be replatted as now proposed which the cul de sac relocated somewhat westerly. The sanitary sewer is not readily available to this property. A main will have to be extended from either the westerly boundary of the Miller property to the west or from Arthur Street to the east. The extension from the west appears most feasible, but it again would require an easement from the lots west of Dearborn. Mr. Hughes reiterates its support from the proposed replat subject to the resolution of the access issues described above. If approved, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Subdivision Dedication. 2. Developer's Agreement which includes the extension of sanitary sewer and the looping of water mains. 3. Vacation of the rights of way as shown on the plat. 4. Submission of grading plan for the lots prior to preliminary approval by the Council. 5. A minor redesign of the proposed cul de sac to reduce its radius. Mr. Runyan asked if the cul de sac was allowed enough room for firetrucks to manuver. Mr. Hughes stated that it was a fairly standard size cul de sac. Mr. Runyan approved of the plan as well as Mrs. Shaw. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval subject to Staff's recommendations and Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. C-84-1 Southdale Library & Service Center. Expansion of Off -Street Parking Facility. 7001 York Avenue Mr. Hughes noted that Hennepin County proposed to undertake a removation of portion of Southdale Library to accommodate new munipal court facilities. These facilities will occupy that portion of the library now used for offices for Library Administrative and Technical Services which will apparently be relocated to Ridgedale Library. The municipal court facility will include three court rooms and staff offices. The proposed renovation will be complete internal and will not result in the expansion of the building's floor area. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 10 parking spaces plus one space per 300 square feet are required for library uses and one space per 200 square feet is required for offices and courtrooms. Based upon our review of the plan, we calculate a parking requirement of 360 spaces. The present parking lot provides 360 spaces. Therefore, no additional spaces need be constructed in connection with the renovation to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the applicant has conducted additional studies and proposes to expand portions of the parking lot southerly and easterly to provide approximately 70 additional spaces. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. Civic institutions such as this, are considered a conditional use in R-1 District and a conditional use permit is required in order to enlarge the parking area. Mr. Hughes stated that Staff believes that the applicant has conducted detailed studies to justify the parking needs of the facility and recommended approval. Francis Bulbulian, architect for the applicant, presented detailed plans and was available to answer questions. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-9 Baglien Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition Mr. Hughes explained the applicant requests a party -wall division of an existing two-family dwelling. Individual utilities are provided. Approval is recommended. Mr. Skagerberg recommended approval and Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-10 Grinnell/Walser Lot 30, Colonial Grove 2nd Addn. East of Brookview and south of 56th Street. v Mr. Hughes stated the applicant, who resides at 5615 Brookview, proposes to acquire a three foot wide strip of property from his neighbor to the south to facilitate construction of an adddition which will conform with setback requirements. The lot and dwelling to the south will continue to conform with zoning requirements. Approval is recommended. Mr. Sked moved for approval and Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-11 Hepp Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting the division of Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls for the purpose of conveying a portion of his lot to the owner of Lot 12. A portion of the swimming pool and dog kennel on Lot 12 was apparently constructed across the common lot line with Lot 11 several years ago. The proposed division represents the resolution of an adverse possession claim by the owner of Lot 12. Setback requirements for the home on Lot 11 continue to be met after the division. The proposed division appears to remedy the encroachment problem caused by the swimming pool and, therefore, Staff recommends approval. It should be noted that the Ordinances require a 20 foot setback for the dog kennel. The proposed division provides a 6 foot setback. Thus, if total compliance with all Ordinances is desired, the relocation of the kennel may be desirable. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Craig Larsen presented the proposed Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan and the Grandview Redevelopment Project Number One to the Commission. Together the Plan and Project serve as the basis for the establishment of a Tax Increment Financing Project for the Grandview Area. In order to meet the statutory requirements for the v establishment of a new tax increment district two separate documents are needed. First the Redevelopment plan describes existing conditions, documents problems in the area and recommends certain redevelopment activities to correct problems and achieve goals and objectives established for the area. Second the Redevelopment Project serves as the finance plan for redevelopment activities. It estimates the public cost of the project, the method of financing the cost, and the tax increment expected to repay the tax increment bonds. Mr. Larsen summarized the Redevelopment Plan by describing existing problems in the Plan Area. The Plan points out a substantial quantity of substandard buildings, non- conforming buildings and land uses, obsolete uses, and under utilized properties. The arrangement of public parking, and the inadequate amount of parking in the commercial core of the area are also identified in the Plan. In addition traffic and circulation problems set forth in the "Grandview Area Traffic Study," prepared by BRW, Inc. are incorporated into the Plan. Based upon these problems the Redevelopment Plan concludes that certain redevelopment activities are warranted. Among the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan are: 1. Promote development and redevelopment in a manner consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. To improve the efficiency of the street and roadway system through the implementation of the road improvements recommended in the "Grandview Area Traffic Study." 3. To promote the secure additional public parking in the area. 4. To promote and secure the redevelopment of parcels with substandard and non -conforming buildings to more clearly define land uses and provide a more efficient utilization of properties. The Redevelopment Plan also emphsizes improving the aesthetics and definition of the area through increased buffering, especially landscaping. Mr. Larsen reported that the Redevelopment Project No. 1 anticipates a total public redevelopment cost of approximately $4,500,000. This cost would be paid by the issuance of General obligation Tax Increment bonds and through special assessments against benefitting properties. The bonds would be amoritized over 25 years. The public costs include the roadway improvements to Vernon Avenue and the construction of 400 stall, four level parking ramp on the site now housing City storage facilities. Expected private redevelopment includes the redevelopment of the Biltmore Motel with condominiums, increased retail and office space near the Jerry's complex, redevelopment of three single- family houses on Summit Avenue with eight townhouse units, and the redevelopment of the area containing the Biltmore Bowl, Jerry Leonards and a small office building with the additional offices. Later phases of the project would concentrate redevelopment activities in the industrial area south of Eden Avenue. The Redevelopment is proposed to be undertaken in two or more phases. Phase I of the project would involve the following public costs: 1. Demolition of existing City storage buildings and the construction of a two level parking ramp (approximately 200 spaces). 2. Road improvements to the area referred to as Issue Area 1 in the Traffic Study, i.e. the Sherwood, Eden, Vernon intersection and Link Road. 3. Construction of a major new intersection serving Jerrys, 1st Bank and Union 76, including access to the parking ramp. Mr. Larsen indicated that the total public cost of the Phase I project would be approximately $2,556,000. Twenty - percent of the cost is proposed to be specially assessed leaving a cost of $2,150,000 for which bonds would be sold. The bond issue would be amortized over a period of 25 years with the tax increment provided by redevelopment and a general inflation increment on the 51 parcels in the district. He explained that in order to proceed with the Redevelopment Plan and Project it is necessary that the H.R.A. adopt the Plan and Project and that the Commission and City Council approve the Plan and Project. Mrs. McClelland expressed concerns regarding the intersection at Link Road. Discussion ensued as to the roadways and the possible dollar amount of work to be done. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the concept of the proposed Grandview Redevelopment Plan and Grandview Redevelopment Project Number One. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS BY, AND RESOLUTIONS OF, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF EDINA MINNESOTA, RELATIVE TO AND APPROVING GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 DATED MAY 30, 1984 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "Authority"), has prepared a redevelopment plan for the Grandview area of Edina Minnesota entitled "The Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan" dated May 30, 1984, (the "Plan"), for a project to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan and designated as Grandview Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Plan and Project was duly transmitted by the Authority to the Community Development and Planning Commission of the City of Edina, Minnesota, (the "Planning Commission") being duly designated and acting official planning agency of the Edina, for its study and with a request for its written opinion thereon; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby resolve, find and determine: 1. That the Plan provides an outline for the development and redevelopment of the area within the Project, is sufficiently complete to indicate the relationship of the Plan to the objectives of the City of Edina as to appropriate land uses within the Project and to indicate the general land uses and general standards of development or redevelopment within the Project, and that the Plan and Project conform to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 2. That the Commission Project and recommends approval Authority and the City Council. approves of the Plan and The and adoption thereof by the