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,