Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 11-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Len Ring, John Palmer, John Skagerberg, David Runyan, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Phil Sked and John Bailey MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Shaw STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Harold Sand, Assistant Planner Linda Elsen, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES; October 31, 1984 Del Johnson moved for approval of the minutes and Len Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor; the minutes were approved. II. OLD BUSINESS; S-84-7 Indian Hills 2nd Addition - Revised Preliminary Plat C-84-3 Crossview Lutheran Church Generally located west of Gleason and south of Crosstown Highway Mr. Hughes stated that the Commission recommended approval of a seven lot, R-2 subdivision of that portion of the Crossview Lutheran Church property which adjoins McCauley Trail and the City Council granted preliminary plat approval on June 18, 1984. The applicants are now proposing to subdivide an additional portion of the Church's property into eight new R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District, lots. These lots range from 11,850 square feet to 20,700 square feet. Mr. Hughes reported that Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed plat measures five acres in area and would be retained by the Church. A conditional use permit has been applied for by the Church for the purpose of constructing a 12,000 square foot, two-story addition. The proposed addition will be located on the east side of the existing building in an area partially occupied by an unsurfaced parking area. The first level of the proposed addition would contain classrooms and related facilities for Sunday School use. The second level would contain a large meeting room, lounge, a kitchen, and storage areas. The existing sanctuary which contains pew.seating for about 300 would reamin unchanged. If warranted, additional seating of 150 may be considered in the future. A new 62 car parking lot would be constructed to the south of the proposed addition. Plans show an expansion potential of 48 additional parking spaces which would be constructed if more seating is provided in the sanctuary. Total parking complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hughes and staff believe that the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance have been met and a conditional use permit should be granted. He recommended, however, that the parking lot to the west of the church be modified to provide the required 20 foot setback from the north property line. Two parking spaces would have to be eliminated to provide this setback. These could be added to the new parking lot. Also, modification of the the new parking lot is suggested due to a somewhat inefficient layout. Mr. Hughes recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. Receipt of suitable grading and landscape plans. 2. Building materials for the addition must match existing materials. 3. The church must be connected to sanitary sewer in conjunction with the expansion. 4. No additional seating can be provided in the sanctuary without the construction of additional parking. Mr. Hughes recommended approval of =the revised preliminary plat with the same conditions as the original proposal: 1. Subdivision dedication. 2. Developer's Agreement which includes the extension of sanitary sewer mains (which will probably require a lift station) and the extension of a storm sewer. 3. Conservation Restriction covering the wetland area. During the course of construction, a snow fence to delineate the limits of grading is recommended. 4. Grant of easements to facilitate storm sewer extensions. 5. Grant of DNR permit, 6. Petition to install permanent street surfacing and curb and gutter on McCauley Trail West abutting the R-2 lots and the church site. Mr. Jeff Gustafson, contractor, and Mr. Chuck Sedgwick of the Church, were present. Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed by Staff and Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor; revision of the preliminary -plat was approved. Mr. Gordon Johnson obstained due to late arrival. Mr. Bailey moved for approval of the condtional use permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the conditional use permit was approved. Mr. Gordon Johnson obstained. Z-84-3 Opus/Normandale Golf Inc. and S-84-14 Camelot West. R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to POD -2, Planned Office District Generally located: North of West 77th Street and East of T.H. 100 Mr. Gordon Hughes reported that the subject property measures 27.5 acres in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The property is the present site of Normandale Golf Course which is a nine hole, par 27 executive course. The golf course is served by an existing A -frame pro shop/ticket office and a parking lot which is accessed from West 77th Street. The subject property is designated "quasi -public" by the Edina Comprehensive Plan. Adjoining the rezoned parcel to the west and east are developed properties which are zoned POD -1. Across the street to the south are properties zoned PID and POD -2. Adjoining the northerly edge of the golf course are developed R-1 lots and adjoining the east boundary of the golf course is Lake Edina Park. The applicants request a rezoning of the southerly 6.75 acres of the property to POD -2, Planned Office District. A preliminary development plan has been submitted which shows a five-story.1O6,6OO square foot office building for the rezoned parcel. All parking will be located between the proposed building and West 77th Street. The proposed building location maintains a distance of about 290 feet, at the closest point, from the rear lot lines of the single family lots which border the north edge of the golf course. Mr. Hughes stated that according to City records, the office/industrial land in the vicinity of the subject property was rezoned in 1962. The City Council minutes documenting this rezoning note concern expressed by some residents and Council members regarding future development of the golf course. Although the minutes indicate a discussion concerning deed restrictions or protective covenants to prohibit future development of the golf course, no such restrictions were then imposed and, to the City's knowledge, no restrictions now exist which affect the development of the golf course other than normal zoning and development controls. Although they are unsure if the balance of the site will continue to be operated as a golf course, the applicants are willing to impose a deed restriction or similar covenant %-curing that no further development occurs. Mr.Hughes noted that the City of Edina may be interested in acquiring the balance of the property and operating the golf course. Mr. Hughes said that from a land use standpoint, the proposed development of the southerly portion of the site for office purposes and the retention of the balance of the site as a golf course/open space/buffer represents a reasonable use of the property which is in keeping with surrounding developments. However, the proposed five -story building is somewhat taller than surrounding developments and therefore, a rezoning to POD -1 which has a four- story height limit may be more appropriate for the subject property. The building should be relocated southerly to provide a more generous spacing from the homes to the north. The desire to take advantage of the views afforded by the golf course is understandable. Staff believes that the amenity value of the course could still be realized if the building were moved 100 feet southerly. With these comments, Mr. Hughes suggested that preliminary approval should be granted subject to: 1. Platting of the property. 2. Conservation Restriction covering the area not rezoned. 3. Acceptable final development plans. He introduced Mr. Bob Worthington, Executive Director of Government Affairs for Opus Corporation. Mr. Worthington presented air photos and explained that construction would not begin for perhaps two years until the need for office space increases. Mr. Worthington said that a portion of the building would be used for a clubhouse for the golf course and that there would be an easement on the balance of the property to insure the open space remains. Mr. Worthington and Mr.Hughes mentioned that the City had expressed an interest in the golf course although funds for such an expense were not available at this time. A donation to the City of this portion of the property is a possibility also. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Worthington to comment on the recommendation of a zone change to POD -1 instead of POD -2. Mr. Worthington stated that Opus Corporation was most interested in constructing a five -story office building. He added that it could be changed if the Planning Commission felt it was necessary. Mr. Del Johnson stated that he agreed that the office building would be located too far to the north on the site. Mr. Worthington reported that the purpose of the northerly location was for energy efficiency. The angle of the building would make better use of the sun rays. The building would be better located to the north for participation in the golf course as a clubhouse. Mr. Worthington believes that the residents to the north do not received such a full view of the building because it would be angled and this would be more beneficial to them. Opus feels that the building situated to the north creates the best parking lot conditions. Although Opus prefers the northerly location, they would agree to Staff recommendations. Mr. Gordon Johnson asked if the parking was adequate for both office and golf use. Mr. Worthington stated that the parking.was sufficient. Staff was statisfied with the parking. Mr. Runyan wondered how much land would be acquired by moving the building away from the residential homes. Mr. Worthington explained that an additional 50 to 75 feet would separate the building from the nearest residential home. Heavy berming would shield the parking from the neighbors. Mrs. McClelland was more in favor of removing a story from the building rather than moving the building. Mr. Fred Allen, 7453 West Shore Drive, stated that office space was not needed in this area and that a five- story building was completely out of proportion. The northerly location of the building would significantly shorten the length of the golf course, and would hinder the wildlife that has been established there. Mr. Allen stated that the golf course simply needed to be maintained better in order to beneficial. He argued that the neighbors had been promised that the golf course would be a permanent buffer between the office area and the residential area. David Byron, 7433 West Shore Drive, pointed out that his property abutted the golf course. Mr. Byron stated that more neighbors would have attended the meeting if they had been aware of it. He accussed opus of using a five- story building as "leverage" and that the neighbors were not only opposed to a five- story building, but to any construction of an office building. Mr. Bryon stated his opposition tof the proposal for the following reasons: I.. This property was established as a buffer zone in 1962. I4 should remain as is. 2. It is strictly a convenience that Mr. Rauenhorst does not recall making a committment to the neighbors to preserve this buffer zone permanently. 3. The proposed useis not compatible with Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan suggests Public/Quasi Public Use. 4. Five stories is completely out of proportion for the neighborhood. 5. The building is located too far to the north. Security lights from the building will shine directly into the neighbors' yards and homes. 6. A restaurant plan was presented at the neighborhood meeting. Is this still in the picture? 7. No visual screening for the neighbors has been presented. 8. The neighbors would need a committment that if this proposal is granted, the remainder of the property would be a permanent buffer. Lee Seeber, 7437 West Shore Drive, pointed out that Mr. Worthington had stated that the golf course need has declined because of competition and therefore, the need for a office building was more financially desirable and then contradicted himself by saying at a later point that there was a demand for golf courses in the area. Mr. Seeber stated that he had spoken with the Park Board in hopes that Edina could take over Normandale Golf Course and bring it up to Braemar's standards. He was informed that at this time there were no funds. He suggested that Opus donate the land to Edina and was told that this was a possibility. Later he was informed of a neighborhood meeting at which the present proposal was discussed. He stated that the neighbors were unprepared and did not object at that time, however, now many neighbors opposed. David Sarver, 7421 West Shore Drive, stated that the wildlife would diminish and many trees would need to be eliminated. The trees are presently screening the view of other office buildings. He was opposed. Bill Sexton, 4901 Poppy Lane, stated that the prime reason for the lack of interested golfers is because of the poor maintenance of the property. An office building there would be a poor choice. Mr. Sexton asked how the neighbors could be informed of the public meetings. Mr. Hughes explained the procedure for rezoning. Joan Sexton, 4901 Poppy Lane, noted that the golf course was once a ski shop in the winter months and did well until the Rauenhorst children acquired it. Mr. Seeber suggested that the parking lot be relocated in order to move the office building to the south. Mr. Worthington explained that Opus was interested in including the building with the golf course. Mr. Worthington stated that Opus had previously held the proposal over from the Planning Commission meeting in order to give the neighbors ample time to comment to Opus Corporation or ask questions and they had received no response. He stated that Opus intended to legally bind itself with an easement stating that the remainder of the property would be permanent buffer. Mr. Gordon Johnson suggested that this proposal be held over to the next meeting in order to review landscaping and golf course plans. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS LD -84-15 and LD -84-16 Frisvold Lot ll,.Block 1 and Lot 12, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls 8th Addition. Mr. Hughes reported that the applicant request party wall divisions of two existing double bungalows. Individual utility connections are provided. He recommended approval. Mr. Palmer moved for approval and Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-17 Thatcher Lot 6, Block 1, Replat of Part of Grandview Plateau Mr. Hughes stated that the applicant requests a party wall division of an existing double bungalow. Individual utility connections are not provided for each unit. The City's Building Official reports that a waiver of the separate utility connection requirement is warranted in the case. Staff recommends approval subject to the issaunce of such waiver. Mr. Palmer moved for approval and Mr. Sked seconded the mrtion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-18 Hersey Lots 12 and 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. 161 4412 Grimes Avenue South Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed lot division involves three existing parcels at 45th and Grimes shown on the attached graphic. Parcel A is the applicant's homesite which fronts on Grimes. Parcel B, which is also owned by the applicant, fronts on 45th Street and is vacant except for a small garage. The applicant requests a division whereby the westerly 20 feet of the Parcel B will be conveyed to and attached to Parcel C and the remainder of Parcel B will be retained by the applicant and attached to Parcel A. A detached accessory garage is proposed for that part of Parcel B owned by the applicant. He noted that the proposed subdivision will result in three non -conforming parcels being combined to make two parcels which more closely conform to our requirements. Approval was recommended. Mr. Palmer moved for approval and Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. Amendment to City Ordinance No. 812 The Antenna Ordinance Mr. Larsen summarized the following highlights of the proposed Ordinance: General * Dish antennas under 30 inches in diameter and all antennas less than 6 feet in height are exempt from permit. * Towers may not be constructed of wood materials. Lots Used for Residential Purposes in the R-1 and R-2 Districts * Dish antennas can only be located i.n the rear yard and can not be located on the roof of any building. * Dish antennas can not be over 15 feet in height. * Towers can be 50 feet high for a ground mount or 25 feet above the peak of the structure if mounted on a building. * One exempt antenna, one tower, and one dish antenna would be allowed per lot. All Other Zoning Districts • Dish antennas could be located on the ground or the roof of buildings. * Maximum tower height would be 75 feet for either a ground or building mount. * Any number of antennas could be attached to a tower, provided none project more than 15 feet above the top of the tower. * Dish antennas would be limited to a height of 26 feet whether mounted on the ground or roof. * One exempt antenna, one tower over 20 feet in height, and two dish antennas would be permitted per tract. The number of antennas allowed in all zoning districts was of particular concern to Staff in the preparation of the Ordinance. We would especially welcome imput from the Commission on this issue. The requirements for dish antennas are new and designed to be quite restrictive in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The requirements for other type of towers and antennas are approximately the same as in the existing Ordinance, Mr. Larsen introduced Mr. Garfield Anderson, Vice President of Amature Radio Relay eague of America, and noted that he would be meeting with him next week to discuss the Amendment and any wording changes that may be necessary in the Ordinance. Mr. Anderson explained he is a ham operator and was the unoffical spokesman in 1971 when the Antenna Ordinance was officially adopted. He suggested that he may be helpful with some of the wording in the proposed Amendment so that it may protect ham operators and their operations. After limited discussion, Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the Amended Ordinance subject to the proper wording. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT; Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment and Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Linda Elsen, Secretary •