Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 07-31 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularPage 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1985 AT 7:30 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Bailey, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, W. W. Lewis, John Skagerberg, John Palmer, and Del Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson, Virginia Shaw and Phil Sked STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES; Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the minutes for the meeting of June 26, 1985. Mr. David Runyan Seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the Craftsman Builders preliminary plat approval of Interlachen Heights would be continued to the next Commission meeting of August 28, 1985. III. NEW BUSINESS; Z-85-3 Grandview Development Corporation Planned Residential District, PRD -4 to Planned Seniors Residence, PSR -4 Generally Located: West of Vernon Avenue and south of West 52nd Street (Biltmore Motel) Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the subject property is a 3.5 acre site which is occupied by the closed Biltmore Motel. The Commission and Council approved a Planned Residential District (PRD -4) rezoning on the property in the fall of 1984 for the construction of an 88 unit, 4 story condominium project. A new development team has acquired the property and has submitted a rezoning request for the purpose of constructing a seniors citizen rental apartment. The developers are requesting a rezoning to Planned Seniors Residence, PSR -4 to allow the construction of a 152 unit building containing 4,5 and 6 story sections. The building would contain 70 one bedroom Page 2 units, 74 two bedroom units and 8 three bedrooms units. Exterior materials would be brick. Mr. Larsen added that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2,500 square of lot area per unit in PSR -4 with the possibility of reducing this requirement to 1000 square feet per unit through a series of allowances. The proposed plan would be able to achieve the maximum allowance through credits for underground parking, type I or II construction, accessibility to freeways, and for providing senior citizen units. As a result the density as proposed conforms to Ordinance requirements for the PSR -4 district. Mr. Larsen explained that the Zoning Ordinance establishes special requirements for unit types, sizes and for community facilities in a senior citizen apartment building. Using graphics Mr. Larsen presented Ordinance requirements as they compare with the subject proposal: Unit Sizes Zoning Ordinance Subject Proposal 1 Bedroom 550-650 S. F. 70 at 660 S. F. 700 for handicapped 2 Bedroom 750-850 S. F. 33 at 795 S. F. 41 at 900 S. F. 3 Bedroom N.A. 8 @ 1,070 S. F. Community 152 units X 15 7,950 S. F. Spaces S. F. or 2,280 S.F. Mr. Larsen stated that a variance to Ordinance unit size requirements and a variance to allow 3 bedrooms units would be necessary. Mr. Larsen told the Commission that the Ordinance requires that parking be provided at a rate of .25 space per unit enclosed, and .5 space per unit surface parking for a seniors residence. For a 152 unit building this results in 38 enclosed spaces and 76 surface spaces. The subject proposal provides 76 enclosed spaces and 51 surface spaces. the proponents have submitted an alternate plan illustrating 76 surface spaces and have suggested a proof of parking agreement which would add the additional spaces if needed. Traffic would access the site on Vernon Avenue opposite the major intersection recommended by the Grandview Traffic Study for Link Road. No access to either west 52nd or 53rd streets is anticipated by the plan. Mr. Larsen pointed out that in the Planned Residential District when building height exceeds 35 feet the setback required is equal to the height of the building. The Page 3 proposed building contains sections which are 36, 45, and 54 in height. Set backs corresponding to these heights have been provided. The design of the building provides for greater than minimum setbacks for much of the building. The PSR -4 district allows a maximum building coverage of 35%. The proposed building would cover 21% which compares to 27% building coverage for the most recently approved condominium project on the site. Mr. Larsen commented that this concept is referred to as market rate elderly housing and is designed for a population of seniors who would not meet the income limits for other senior housing, and who desire a level of services not provided by more traditional housing alternatives. The proponents have commissioned a market study to determine the demand for this type of housing in Edina. Mr. Larsen added that there are several land use issues that need to be addressed concerning this proposal. The first issue is height. Mr. Larsen explained that the building contains 4, 5, and 6 story sections with respective heights of 36, 45, and 54 feet. This compares to 4 stories and a uniform height of 40 feet for the 88 unit building approved for the site. The architect has chosen to provide a building which is broken down into three main units of varied height to reduce the monotony and to add visual interest to the building. We believe they have succeeded and have created a more appealing building than the previous plan. Properties most impacted by the building's height are to the west along Grandview Lane. Set backs along this line vary from 40 to 90 feet compared to a constant 40 feet of the earlier plan. The increased height allows a reduction in building coverage which results in increased landscaped areas. The proponents contend that the building height results, at least partially, from the need to have a compact building foot print, allowing shorter corridors and a more efficient delivery of services. Mr. Larsen addressed the Zoning issue stating that the City's PSR Zoning District was designed in response to HUD requirements for Section 202 projects. These projects are required to rent only to seniors for the full 40 year term of their mortgage. The buildings contain primarily one bedroom with a limited number of two bedrooms units, and because of income limits for tenants automobile ownership is limited. Since this project would not be controlled by HUD it would be necessary for the City/HRA to limit occupancy. Staff believes this could be accomplished through a redevelopment contract and deed restrictions. Page 4 Mr. Larsen further added that the Zoning Ordinance responded to senior citizens housing by taking the unit sizes that the Federal Government stipulated and incorporating them into the ordinance. This was intended to eliminate the need for variances. The developers contend that their experience indicates a need to offer slightly larger units with more bedroom options than HUD projects would allow. The one bedroom, one bedroom plus den units (considered here as a two bedroom), and 2 bedroom units are within or very near our Ordinance requirements. The three bedrooms units would not be allowed. The proponents claim that the target market demands larger units with more bedroom options. Staff supports a variance to allow the proposed unit sizes and unit mix provided the City can exercise control over building occupancy. Mr. Larsen pointed out that staffs major concern is parking and traffic. The Ordinance requires .75 parking space per unit. .25 of which must be enclosed in the PSR -4 District. The subject proposal would provide .84 space per unit .5 of which would be enclosed. the most comparable existing project in the City would seem to be 7500 York. Parking provided at 7500 York is nearly identical to the subject proposal with a total parking ratio of .82, .47 of which is enclosed. The elderly building at Edinbourgh will provide a total of 1.01 spaces per unit with .7 spaces per unit enclosed. Staff conversations with management at 7500 York indicate a surplus of surface parking and a waiting list for enclosed parking. Staff would suggest an increase in the amount of enclosed parking and a proof of parking agreement for surface parking. The proponents have hired BRW, Inc. to examine the traffic impact of the development. Staff would suggest that the entry from Vernon be redesigned at a right angle to Vernon. Mr. Larsen concluded that the proposed location is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as suitable for elderly housing, and in staffs' opinion represents an excellent reuse of this property. Mr. Larsen further stated that staff recommends approval of the preliminary development plan with an increase in enclosed parkin to .7 per unit, the granting of the unit size variances, surface parking variances and proof of parking agreement. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that Mr. Dunbar held a public meeting on July 29, 1985 regarding this project. At this time Mr. Dunbar was invited to make a presentation of his development plan. Mr. Dunbar began his presentation by explaining to the Commission that the proposed development project is market driven. Mr. Dunbar further added that the Grandview Page 5 Development Team felt there should be no outside influence describing to them what the market should be; therefore, Grandview Development has opted not to take any federal regulations on this project. This would allow the project to be designed strictly to appeal to the market place. Mr. Dunbar proceeded to introduce to the Commission members of the Grandview Development Team. Mr. Wayne Winsor of Winsor/Faricy Architects, Inc., Ms. Patricia A. McCullough of Health Planning and Management Resources, Inc., and Mr. Peter Van Hauer of Health Central Enterprises. Mr. Winsor, Ms. McCullough and Mr. Van Hauer gave a brief presentation of their expertise in relationship to the proposed development project. Commission members directed questions to the Grandview Development Team. William Lewis inquired as to whether there are any facilities like the proposed facility in the metro area. Mr. Van Hauer replied that at the present time there are no facilities exactly like the proposed facility. The difference is that the proposed facility is rental. Other facilities offer similar services but are condominiums or cooperative projects. Mr. Runyan asked Mr. Van Hauer if Health Central had experience in the management of facilities similar to the proposed facility. Mr. Van Hauer told the Commission that Health Central manages 1 project on Lake Shore Drive, 3 HUD projects, and will manage 2 other facilities when they are completed. Mr. Runyan questioned Mr. Van Hauer on the definition of "On Call Nursing". Mr. Van Hauer explained that all units would be equipped with pull cords, most likely placed in the bathroom and master bedroom. If the need would arise for quick medical attention the tenant could alert staff. The staff would be trained for emergency situations; administering CPR etc. Mr. Van Hauer further added that the trained staff are not meant to be a substitute for Police, Fire or other trained emergency personnel. Helen McClelland and David Runyan inquired about rental rates for the project. Mr. Dunbar informed the Commission that a set rate has not been decided on. Mr. Dunbar added that he realizes they have to be market competitive and he is waiting for results of a survey that addresses the rent issue. Mr. Dunbar commented that after a preliminary analysis he felt the rates would most likely be in the price range of $800.00 on up. A brief discussion ensued on if meals would be included in the rental price of the unit. Ms. MCcullough stated that they are looking for a minimum of one meal a day but they have not yet defined how to implement the cost. Ms. McCullough said she is waiting for the market research questionnaire to come back. Ms. Page 6 McCullough added that she felt for the first few years the meals would be subsidized. Mr. Van Hauer added that that would mean that each renter would have a small monthly fee of $10.00-$15.00 as a baseline fee with an additional meal fee. Ms. Mccullough added that the figure would probably be closer to $30.00. Helen McClelland questioned whether or not the units would be handicap accessible. Ms. McCullough stated that units would be handicap accessible. Helen McClelland asked if the age of 75+ was a firm requirement for rental and what would happen if someone became ill and needed to be hospitalized for a period of time. Ms. McCullough explained that the 75+ is an average age quote. Rental can began at age 55+. In regard to the health issue The Grandview Team hopes to develop a occupancy criteria that would address that issue. David Runyan asked Fran Hoffman if traffic signals would be constructed at the site. Mr. Hoffman stated that the City had targeted this area to be signalized and have sidewalks put in. Mr. Dunbar recapped his meeting with the neighborhood by informing the Commission that most residents were comfortable with the proposed development and expressed their belief that the Grandview Team was competent. They also expressed there dissatisfaction with the present site and were satisfied that the proposed development would add to the community. John Palmer moved for approval of preliminary re- zoning. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. S-85-7 Gustafson and Assoc. Preliminary Plat Approval Indian Hills 3rd Addition Lots 1-15, Block 1, Indian Hills 2nd. Lot 11, Block 1, The Timbers Generally Located: South of Crosstown Highway and West of Gleason Road Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the City Council granted final plat approval to Indian Hills 2nd Addition in April, 1985. The plat consisted of 7 R-2 lots along McCauley Trail and 8 R-1 lots on a new cul de sac extending south from McCauley Trail. Since that time the Page 7 proponent has acquired lot 11 of the Timbers and is requesting a subdivision which would add portions of this lot to the R-1 lots in Indian Hills 2nd Addition. No new lots are contemplated by this plat. Lots 1 through 7 remain unchanged from the previously approved plat. Mr. Larsen explained that lot 11 of The Timbers is an extremely large neck lot which has access to Timber Ridge Road. The lot also has frontage on Arrowhead Lake. The proposed plat would add approximately 75 feet of width to lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, and would provide lake access to lots 13 and 14. A large irregularly shaped piece would be added to lot 8 by the proposed plat. The remaining lot from the Timbers, which would become lot 16 of Indian Hills 3rd Addition, would continue to provide a large building site. -Mr. Larsen added that at the time The Timbers plat was approved a deed restriction was placed on lot 11 which prevented further subdivisions which would create additional building sites. This restriction would need to be released prior to recording the new plat. Mr. Larsen concluded that staff supports the concept of the proposed preliminary plat. The proposal greatly enhances the potential of the lots along Timber Trail while causing no harm to lot 16 as a building site. The proposal represents a more efficient use of property. Staff would suggest some changes in the proposed lot arrangements. As proposed, lot 14 does not meet our definition for minimum lot width, that is, a width of 75 feet at a point 50 back from the street. The lot line between lot 8 and lot 16 should be moved north. The lot line between lot 8 and 9 may need to be moved slightly south to accommodate the driveway for lot 8. Any encroachment on the existing wetland would require permits from the DNR and Nine Mile Creek which may mean that the lot line adjustment mentioned before would be a more appropriate approach for access to lot 8. Mr. Larsen stated that staff recommends approval for the preliminary plat subject to the preceding modifications and the following conditions: 1. A revised grading plan for the property in- cluding the exact location of the wetland area, and the location of all utility easements. 2. Any necessary permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 3. Release of the restriction on the subdivision of lot 11 of The Timbers. Page 8 Helen McClelland moved for preliminary plat approval subject to staff conditions. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. P-85-3 Richard Page 7711 Normandale Road Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 Final Development Plan Generally Located: East of State Highway 100 and north of West 78th Street Mr. Larsen explained that the subject property is located on the Edina -Bloomington border adjacent to the Highway 100 frontage road. East and north of the subject property is the Pentagon Office Complex. To the south is a Howard Johnson's motel. The subject property measures 175 feet by 175 feet, contains 30,625 square feet, and is zoned Planned Commercial District -4 (PCD -4). The property is developed with an automobile service center, which offers gasoline sales, and parts and service. The proponent is requesting approval of a Final Development Plan to redevelop the site as a car wash,with related car cleaning service, and gasoline sales. Mr. Larsen added that the redevelopment plan would require the granting of a number of variances. Car washes are required to maintain a 45 foot set back from both the front street and any side street. The proposed plan would maintain a 45 foot set back from Viking Drive, but would maintain a 25 foot set back from West 78th Street. Thus, a 20 foot side street set back variance is requested. The zoning Ordinance requires that parking maintain a 20 foot set back from a street and 10 feet from an interior side lot line. Parking is proposed within 8 feet of West 78th Street, consequently, a 12 foot parking set back variance is requested. On the northeasterly portion of the site a 5 foot parking set back variance would be required. Since the Ordinance allows only one exterior exit per street frontage, a variance to allow the second exit to W. 78th Street is necessary. The final variance involves required spacing of driveways. The Ordinance requires that driveways be 50 feet from intersections and be 20 feet from other driveways as measured from the end of the returns. The large returns result in a request for a 30 foot drive aisle spacing variance. Mr. Larsen told the Commission that the plan as proposed would provide the required number of parking spaces and stacking spaces. The proposed exterior materials comply with Ordinance standards. Except for the West 78th Street Page 9 side the building meets all required set backs. The proponent has submitted a landscape plan and schedule which meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Larsen concluded that the proposed car wash is a deluxe facility which should be much more aesthetically pleasing than a typical car wash and would provide an improvement over the existing use on the site. the plan would provide green areas and landscaping where there is now none. The building is proposed at the smallest possible size in which to house the conveyor wash system. Several alternative site plans were reviewed in an attempt to minimize the need for variances and provide smooth function and traffic flow. The proposed site plan provides the best arrangement on the site. Mr. Larsen suggested that parking space number 12 be removed. Mr. Page was present to explain his proposal. Mr. Page pointed out to the Commission that the City of Edina lacked a full service car wash. Mr. Page added that the present gas station would be demolished and the proposed car wash/gas station would be built in its place. Mr. Page stated that he offered an employment agreement to the man who ran the previous gas station enabling him to run the proposed gas station/car wash . Mr. Page informed the Board that he had contacted Pentagon Park the owners of the adjoining parking lot with the request to lease additional parking spaces if the car wash parking demand should increase. Mr. Page was informed that for a fee of $10.00 per month up to 10 cars would be able to be parked. Mr. John Palmer moved approval of the Final Development Plan. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. P-85-4 Hoyt Construction Final Development Plan Generally Located: East of Cecilia Circle and south of West 78th Street Page 10 Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the subject property is a 5 acre parcel zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. The site is developed with small warehouse building located in the south central portion of the lot. PID properties are located to the west and northeast of the site. Property to the north is vacant, but was recently zoned for townhouses and apartments. Property to the south is in the City of Bloomington and is developed with similar uses. The proponent has submitted plans which contemplate the redevelopment of the site with an office -warehouse building of 72,390 square feet. Mr. Larsen added that the proposed building would be evenly split between office and warehouse uses. In the PID Zone office space must provide parking at a rate of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area and warehouse space must provide parking at a rate of one space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed plan would provide 209 parking spaces where 199 are required. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the exterior materials of the building would be brick with copper trim. These materials comply with Ordinance requirements. Mr. Larsen continued that the redevelopment of the site would require a number of variances. The most northerly corner of the building maintains a set back of 56 feet where 75 feet is required. Parking and drive aisles encroach into required set backs along the northerly portion of the site. The required 10 foot parking to building set back is not provided at several points along the north and east sides of the building. Mr. Larsen concluded that the site is large relatively flat parcel with no obvious limitations to its redevelopment. There are areas of poor soil in the southwesterly portion of the property and a steep slope along northerly property line. These conditions do not limit the ability to redevelop the site. Except for the 100 foot inset of the property line in the northeast corner of the property staff can identify no compelling reasons that variances are warranted for this proposal. Mr. Larsen stated that staff recommends denial of the Final Development Plan. The proponents Mr. Bradley Hoyt and Mr. Bill Anderson of Design Partnership were present. Mr. Anderson with the aid of graphics described to the Commission the site of the proposed warehouse. Mr. Anderson stated that the area has a large amount of natural vegetation and combined with the slope of the land makes the visual impact of the site minimal. Mr. Anderson further f Page 11 explained to the Commission reasons why the development of this parcel requires variances. Mr. Hoyt stated that the proposed warehouse design is very attractive. The intrusion of the corner totals 6/10 of 1% of total warehouse space. Mr. Anderson added that to maintain the geometry of the structure the corner would have to remain as proposed. If the corner was moved back to comply with staff requests the warehouse structure would loose 3,000 square feet. Mr. Hoyt continued by informing the Commission that Hoyt had a previous plan that would not have required variances, but that warehouse design did not allow adequate parking. This new warehouse design enables the site to supply adequate parking for the tenants. David Runyan felt that one of the positive aspects of the project was its irregular building shape by pointing out that most warehouse structures are boxlike. Mr. Runyan added that he also felt that a honest attempt was made to soften the structure with landscaping. Mr. Runyan further added that he found no problem with the corner and reflected the opinion of the proponents that to change the corner would affect the geometry of the structure. Del Johnson commented that he has seen the completed warehouse structure the proponents have constructed in Bloomington and that the structure is very attractive. Mr. David Runyan moved to approve the project and the variances. Mr. John Palmer seconded the motion. William Lewis, Del Johnson and John Skagerberg voted aye. Helen McClelland voted naye. The motion carried 5-1 vote. LD -85-9 Ron Clark Construction, Inc. 6500-02 Gleason Court Lot 5, Block 1, Gleason Court Request: Party wall lot division Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the proponent is requesting a party wall lot division of an existing double bungalow. Mr. Larsen stated that the proposed division meets Zoning Ordinance requirements for the division of R-2 properties. Mr. Larsen concluded that staff recommends approval. John Palmer moved for approval of the lot division. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Page 12 *Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ten Year Capital Improvement Program. Jerry Dalen was present to answer any questions the public or Commission may have on the issue. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the Capital Improvement Plan was considered a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that amendments to the plan must originate before the Commission at a public hearing. He further informed the Commission that the Council had held several hearings on the proposed CIP and had given it a preliminary approval pending this public hearing. Mr. Palmer noted that no members of the public were present for the public hearing. David Runyan moved to pass the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ten Year Capital Improvement Program to the City Council for consideration and adoption. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully Submitted,