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
•