Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 10-31 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnsons, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, John Palmer, Len Ring, Virginia Shaw, Phil Sked, and John Bailey MEMBERS ABSENT: David Runyan and John Skagerberg STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Bob Kojetin, Director of Park and Recreation Linda Elsen, Secretary Approval of the minutes: September 26, 1984 Mr. Del Johnson moved for approval and Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. Z-80-3 Edinborough Generally located west of York Avenue and south of West 76th Street Gordon Johnson announced he was abstaining from discussion and recommendation of action regarding Edinborough. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that this project has received preliminary rezoning to Mixed Development District by the City Council and what the Commission will be reviewing at this meeting are final development plans and final rezoning approval. He introduced Peter Jarvis, from Bennett, Ringrose, Wofsfeld, Inc. r. Mr. Jarvis identified members of the development team. Present were: Larry Laukka, principal in charge of housing development; Tom LaSalle, principal in charge of management of the project; Rick Martens, principal in charge of the office development; and Dennis Sutlift, principal architect from BRW for the elderly housing and the office. Mr. Jarvis started with the overall site plan, stating that conceptually the project is the same as originally proposed. The most significant change is the very south end of the site. Graphics were presented to illustrate Mr. Jarvis' report. The south end is truly mixed use in the sense that it is made up of three different uses. Two office buildings flank the east and west corner of the site. What was previously a flagship office building is now a senior citizen housing element of seventeen stories. All three of these buildings are tied together with the enclosed public park. Phase 1 of the project is 100,000 square feet of office, 201 senior citizen units, 56 condominium units, and the enclosed public park. Parking consists of two levels below grade for the senior citizens. There is no underground parking for the office building. Complete surface parking was diagramed on the graphics Mr. Jarvis displayed. Mr. Jarvis stated that off of York Avenue is the major ceremonial entrance to the project including a turn around. This is for park drop off and pick up as well as the office buildings and transit purposes. Located to the north are approximately 400 units (which was originally closer to 600 in mid and high rise) which are part of the equity participation program. A major north - south pedestrian spine winds through the site connecting these seven clusters of units back to the park. These units are all two, three and four story stick frame construction on top of a masonary base which encloses underground parking for the above developed units. Guest parking is located to the north. Mr. Jarvis spoke regarding the landscaping. The concept calls for a lush combination of plants and planters, a water feature in the center and various pavement patterns for the north -south spine and attached courtyards. The office buildings will be surrounded by heavy perimeter plantings and alternating berm conditions that will screen the parking as much as possible. The parking will be located away from the office building with bridges leading to the offices. Mr. Jarvis spoke regarding the schematic design of the park pointing out the extension of the elderly high rise overlooking the park. This is a dining terrace. From south to north the park steps down in elevation. As the park opens up from this southerly view point, it consists of four major areas: amphitheatre, the exhibition ice, multi- purpose active area a low-key passive area. The facilities include: two exihibition raquetball courts, a multi-purpose flat -floor space, 25 meter lap pool with an elevated and enclosed running track around the pool. Mr. Jarvis summarized that the enclosed park is about 41,000 square feet. Phase 1 is anticipated to begin February/March, 1985, is comprised of the elderly high rise building, the easterly office building, a minimum of 56 units of the family housing and the park. Phase 2 and 3 is scheduled to go under construction in 1986 or sooner depending on the market. Phase 4 scheduled for the end of 1986, Phase 5 in 1987 and Phase 6 and 7 in 1988. Construction would be completed in 1989. Total completed value will be in the range of 60 to 65 million dollars. Mr. Jarvis summarized that the project was substantially more advanced and capable in terms of financing. The status of the developers agreement is closer than it has ever been. Mr. Del Johnson asked if there were similar projects. Mr. Jarvis stated that in the United States and Canada, the closest in comparison would be Town Square in St. Paul. However, Edinborough differs from any other development because of its enclosed recreational, cultural, garden park instead of an arboritum-type, enclosed park. Mr. Palmer questioned the concerns mentioned in the staff report regarding parking for the park. Mr. Hughes said that the parking concern was an H.R.A. issue. From a planning standpoint the parking appeared adequate. He also noted a concern regarding the multi-purpose, hard -surfaced area of the park. Perhaps it can not be programed to the extent it is intended for. The park, however, was to be reviewed by other City staff members. Mr. Bob Kojetin, Director of Park and Recreation, was present and explained that these plans would be reviewed by the park board. Mr. Palmer found the proposed plans creative and interesting and moved for approval of the final development plans. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; Mr. Gordon Johnson abstained. The motion carried. S-84-15 Victorsen's Valley View 2nd Addition Generally located: South of Valley View Road and west of Brookview Avenue Mr. Hughes stated that the applicant requests a two lot plat of two pre-existing unplatted parcels. The westerly unplatted parcel (which roughly coincides with Parcel A of the new plat) has been owned by the proponent for many years, is landlocked and is, therefore, unbuildable. The easterly unplatted parcel (which roughly coincides with Parcel B of the new plat) is developed with a single dwelling unit building fronting on Brookview Avenue. This parcel was recently acquired by the applicant. The proposed plat is requested to provide a 20 foot strip across the easterly parcel to provide access for the westerly parcel. If approved, a new single dwelling unit building is proposed of the westerly lot. Mr. Hughes explained that Parcel A does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet, therefore, a 55 foot lot width variance is needed. The proposed new lot is located about 45 feet from the Garrison Lane cul de sac. To gain access to Garrison Lane, the applicant would need to acquire property from the homeowner to the west. The applicant reports that he has been unable to acquire such an access. Mr. Hughes explained that the proposed plat creates a parcel which we have described in the past as a neck lot. The Comprehensive Plan states the following policy: Prohibit "neck lot" subdivisions whereby access to public streets is gained through narrow strips of land adjacent to other lots. Mr. Hughes also noted that the lot width definition of the Zoning Ordinance was suggested by staff to prohibit unusually narrow cul de sac lots and neck lots such as this. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Hughes, stated the City has the rationale to deny the subdivision. Mr. Hughes said that the Commission and Council should be aware of several points in making the determination of unique circumstances or undue hardship in connection with the requested lot width variance: First, the division which created the westerly landlocked parcel apparently was not approved by the City. Second, the landlocked parcel is not a "non -conforming lot". Therefore, this parcel did not comply with the Ordinance when created and has always been unbuildable. Third, the landlocked parcel and the easterly parcel have now, in essence, been combined by virture of their present common ownership into one, conforming lot.he City may not be obliged now to resubdivide the property to create an additional lot which does not comply with our Ordinance. Also, the lot resulting from the combination of the parcels is actually smaller in size than the R-1 lot immediately to the south. Fourth, the landlocked parcel could be accessed better from Garrison Lane. Based upon these issues, Mr. Hughes suggested that approval of the subdivision and variance is not warranted and should be denied. Mr. and Mrs. Victorsen were present. Mrs. Victorsen spoke explaining that the parcel was a beautiful lot which overlooked a pond. They originally purchased the property intending to build garages for an adjacent apartment building. which they owned, but decided against the extra garages at a later time. The Victorsen's contacted the Garrisons and the Eisenbreys in an attempt to negotiate access to this parcel from the west. Neither party agreed to participate. Mrs. Victorsen explained the landlocked parcel was created when Southdale Center purchased it in 1956 for utilitu purposes. She pointed out that the City was well aware at the time the land was divided in 1956, that it was land locked and could have made objections at that time. She also mentioned 6128 Timber Ridge, a lot platted in 1978, which the City approved as a neck lot. She argued that the subdivision should be granted. Mr. and Mrs. Victorsen noted that an alternative plan of adding 20 feet to the proposed drive aisle. Mr. Eisenbrey, 6228 Brookview Avenue, stated that the Victorsens had informed them that they intended to build doubles on the property. Mr. Eisenbrey stated his objection to any rezoning. He was asked if he would object to a single dwelling unit on the lot and Mr. Eisenbrey would not be satisfied with that either. Mr. Garth Holmes, 6220 Brookview Avenue, also objected to any rezoning. Rev. Timothy Clay, 6221 Brookview Avenue, related at parable in which the moral implied that the subdivision may only be the start of what the Victorsens would really be doing with the lot. Mrs. Victorsen attempted to reassure them that a single dwelling unit was the only plan the Victorsens were interested in. Mr. Swant, 4428 Garrison Lane, complained about the present parking problems of the apartment buildings. He would like to see the lot used for its originally intended purpose of garage space. Mrs. Victorsen explained that they no longer owned the apartment buildings. Mrs. McClelland stated that based on the fact that the parcel was landlocked when purchased and the City does not have a legally recorded subdivision on the original lot, she recommended denial of the subdivision. She noted that in planning, the Commission has worked to discourage neck lots. Mrs. McClelland stated she did not see a hardship or an overwhelming desire or need for this subdivision. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. C-84-2 Our Lady of Grace Church - Conditional Use Permit Generally located: West of T.H. 100 and south of Eden Avenue Mr. Hughes reported that Our Lady of Grace Church is proposing a 23,650 square foot addition to their existing church building. This additiion will house a new sanctuary, a small chapel, meeting rooms and other related facilities. The existing sanctuary will be converted into a gymnasium for use by Our Lady of Grace School. The proposed new sanctuary will contain pew seating for 848 people and space for overflow seating for an additional 133. (Pew seating has been based on one person per 18 inches of pew space.) The proposed addition requires few alterations to the balance of the church property. No new parking lots are proposed and none are required as a result of the addition. Other than a minor extension and redevelopment of the main entry drive, no other changes to the balance of the site are proposed. Staff believes that the findings required for the issuance of the conditional use permit have been met and a permit should, therefore, be issued. No modifications of the plans are necessary to protect adjoining properties. Mr. Hughes recommended approval subject to the permit being limited to the plans presented. He noted that Mr. John Justice, architect, was present to answer any questions. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval of the conditional use permit subject to the plans presented. Mr. Ring seconded the motion. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bailey obstained. All were in favor; the motion carried. Adjournment: Mr. Ring moved for adjournment and Mrs. Shaw seconded the motion. All were in favor; the meeting was adjourned. 4" Li da Elsen