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