Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 12-04 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY DECEMBER, 4, 1985, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, William Helen McClelland, Skagerberg, John Paulus. MEMBERS ABSENT: David Runyan STAFF PRESENT: Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Phil Sked, John Bailey, John Palmer, Virginia Shaw and Jane Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the October 30, 1985 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Mr. Del Johnson moved for approval of the minutes of the September 19, 1985 Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting. Mr. Phil Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the minutes of the October 3, 1985 Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting. Mr. Phil Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Mrs. Virginia Shaw moved for approval of the minutes of the October 17, 1985 Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-85-3 Grandview Development Company 5212 Vernon Avenue Planned Residential District, PRD -4 to Planned Seniors Residence, PSR -4 Mr. Larsen informed the Commission a preliminary rezoning approval for the subject development was granted by the City Council on August 19, following the Commissions recommendation of July 31, 1985. The approval anticipated 152 rental apartment units designed for occupancy by seniors. Mr. Larsen pointed out that on November 4, the City Council passed a bond inducement resolution which will allow the developer to secure tax exempt financing for the project. Mr. Larsen added the proponents have submitted Final Plans, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, grading and utility plan, and a landscaping plan in support of their request for Final Rezoning approval. Mr. Larsen continued that at the time of preliminary approval the Commission and Council directed that certain changes be made. In addition to a satisfactory redevelopment contract, preliminary approval was conditioned upon realignment of the access to Vernon and an increase in the amount of underground parking. The Final Development Plan illustrates the driveway access at right angles to Vernon as recommended. Underground parking has been increased from 76 to 94 spaces. Mr. Larsen stated in addition to the mandated changes, minor changes have been made to the building foot print, unit plans, and common spaces. Overall floor area has increased slightly while there has been a slight decrease in total lot coverage. The changes can be attributed to design refinement. Mr. Larsen concluded the proponents have submitted plans which respond well to criticisms of the preliminary plan. Staff believes this will be a high quality development and an asset to the community, and recommend approval conditioned upon: 1. An executed Redevelopment Contract 2. Final Staff review of the landscaping plan. 3. A proof of parking agreement for surface parking. Mr. Harry Olson, architect for Grandview Corporation was present . Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen the setback distance of the westerly corner due to the minor change in design. Mr. Larsen using graphics said a 36 foot setback was required. The proposed development will have a 40 foot setback which complies with the Ordinance of setback equaling height of the structure. Mr. Frank Dunbar, the Developer arrived. Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of Final Rezoning subject to staff conditions. Mr. John Bailey seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon Johnson abstained. The motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-85-12 Richard Steiner Preliminary Plat and 42, Block 2, 2nd Addition and Robert Gislason Approval, Lots 41, South Harriet Park Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property consists of two, individually developed single dwelling lots. Both lots are relatively narrow and exceptionally deep, each measuring approximately 60 feet by 400 feet. Total area in the two lots is 44,854 square feet. Mr. Larsen stated the individual owners have agreed to a joint venture to propose a four lot subdivision which would create two, new buildable lots. Lot 1 measures 78 feet in width, 119 feet in depth and contains 9,282 square feet. Lot 2 would be 80 feet wide, 119 feet deep, and would contain 10,472 square feet. Lots 3 and 4, for the existing dwellings, would contain 13,400 and 11,700 square feet respectively. Mr. Larsen pointed out the zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 120 feet. Since Lots 1 and 2 would provide only 119 feet, a lot depth variance would be required. The new lots would meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements for single dwelling unit lots. Mr. Larsen added that within the South Harriet Park Subdivision a lot width of approximately 60 feet seems typical. Lot depths within the two block area east of the creek between 52nd and 54th Street vary from 220 to over 400 feet. Due to the path of the creek and the need to align with roads to the north, the lots in this area are unusually deep. Mr. Larsen concluded there is adequate property available on this combined site to provide two new lots which would be very similar to the lots north of 52nd Street. Lots widths on Juanita, Indianola, and Halifax, north of 52nd Street are generally 75 or 80 feet, and most lots are between 105 and 110 feet in depth. Staff recommended approval with the following changes and conditions: 1. Increase the frontage on each lot to 85 feet to compensate for the lack of lot depth. The existing houses would still maintain 65-70 foot rear yards. 2. In order to have adequate spacing between the new home on lot 1 and the existing home at 5209 (immediately south) the normal rear yard set back of 25 feet should be increased to 40 feet. This condition could be imposed when lot depth variances are requested. 3. Developer's agreement to cover the extension of the water main in 52nd Street to serve the new lots. 4. Subdivision dedication. Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen if the proponents had an objection to the increase of the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 40 feet. Mr. Larsen stated he has submitted a staffs; report to Mr. Frank Cardarelle, Developer but at this time had received no reply. Mr. Mansell Mitchell resident of 5137 Juanita stated he was not opposed to the development of the property in question but would like the Commission to take into consideration the uniqueness of the neighborhood and the architectural design of its' homes. Mr. Mitchell further added he realizes the Commission and Council cannot place architectural restrictions on Developers with regard to structural design of dwellings but expressed his concern that the new dwellings maintain compatibility with the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the preliminary plat subject to staff conditions and the condition that the increase of the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 40 feet be recorded with the plat. Mr. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. P-85-7 Honeywell, Incorporated 5901 County Road #18 Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property measures 21.74 acres in size and is developed with structure containing a gross area of 96,768 square feet. The property is bounded on the West by County Road 18, on the south by Manor Homes, and the east by Nine Mile Creek. Directly north of the site are the Londonderry Townhomes, and to the northeast are single family homes. Although Honeywell owns several parcels near or adjacent to the subject property, only Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1145 is used to determine Zoning Compliance for the subject proposal. No changes or improvements are proposed on tracts B,D and E of R.L.S. 1145, or Tract B of R.L.S. 1378. Mr. Larsen stated Honeywell has submitted plans for a 3 -story building containing a gross floor area of 169,690 square feet. As required by the Zoning Ordinance a site plan, grading and utility plan, landscaping plan, and elevations have been provided for Commission review. Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed building would be immediately north of, and connected to the existing building. The building will be cut into the hillside which will allow the roof elevation of the new building to be the game as the existing building. Exterior materials will be brick to match the existing brick. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the proposed addition either meets or exceeds all standards and conditions established in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Larsen added the proponents have submitted plans to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for the required grading permit. The plan -does indicate filling in a portion of the flood plain for the site. According to Barr Engineering, consultants to the Watershed, the proposed encroachment is within the allowed 20 percent encroachment, and that Watershed staff will recommend that the permit be granted. Mr. Larsen reported that Honeywell has also submitted a traffic study. The report shows that currently, the only access to the site is on Lincoln Drive midway along the Westerly properly line. Although Londonderry Drive east of Lincoln Drive is a public street, it currently serves only the residents of Londonderry Townhomes. The use of Londonderry Drive by Honeywell will increase the average daily traffic, on the street from 420 trips to approximately 1,240 trips. Mr. Larsen concluded staff believes that Honeywell has prepared an excellent plan for expansion on this site. The building addition is well located, and the design and materials are excellent. The site is currently well buffered from residential uses to the north and east by the creek and existing vegetation. None of this area will be disturbed. New landscaping is proposed at approximately double Ordinance requirements. New landscaping along the southerly property line will provide a visual buffer for the residents of Manor Homes. Mr. Larsen stated that several traffic related issues should be addressed: 1. County Road 18 - Londonderry Interchange. The Interchange currently becomes quite congested during peak hours. The installation of signals at the ramps in 1986 should help relieve this congestion. 2. Honeywell site access. Staff feels that the site should have two access points. The use of Londonderry Drive appears to be the most appropriate location. 3. Londonderry Drive Design. The plans submitted illustrate Londonderry as a entry only to the Honeywell site. Staff would prefer to see a full cul de sac at the end of Londonderry. This would allow snow plows and other traffic to turn around without using townhouse property. Mr. David Opheim, Honeywell Defense Systems, Mr. Jim Lindberg, Architect and Mr. Kick oppy were present representing Honeywell, Inc. Mr. Opheim explained to the Commission that Honeywell has occupied the present building since 1979 and.the expansion plans are for office and research space. The reason for the expansion is two -fold: 1. To consolidate the 2,000 Honeywell employees which are presently spread over the southwest suburbs, the majority at Opus.(the proposed expansion would increase the occupancy of the site from 300 to 750. 10o to 15% would be new hires). 2. Expansion of Business. Mr. Opheim added that Honeywell has employed the architectural firm of Lindberg and Pierce to develop a building concept that would 1) have no variances. 2) Comply with all EPA standards. 3) stress protection of the wetlands and natural vegetation. 4) maintain or exceed present landscaping 5) blend with the terrain.(the result being the proposed structure's height matching the present structure. 6) address the problem of traffic. Mr. Opheim stated that Honeywell requested that Lindberg/Pierce employ a traffic engineering firm (Westwood) to study the problem of traffic, take measurements and propose recommendations or means to minimize the traffic impaction for Edina residents. Mr. Opheim pointed out in a traffic flow study that the center of gravity for Honeywell employees is the highway intersection of Highway 55 and Highway 18, concluding the majority of employees will use Highway 18 to commute to/from work and not travel through the City of Edina. Mr. Opheim noted that Honeywell works a flex hour system, which should disburse the traffic flow over a few hours, minimizing the traffic impact during peak hours. Mr. Opheim told the Commission that Honeywell mailed notices to affected neighbors inviting them to a meeting on the proposed expansion. Twelve neighbors attended. The primary concern of the neighbors in attendance was the proposed drive access from Honeywell to Londonderry Road to the north. Presently a access does not exist at this location. Mr Opheim added that members of Honeywell, traffic engineers and the architects discussed other alternatives and concluded, as did staff, that the northerly access was the best. Mr. Lindberg elaborated on building design, pointing out the care that was taken in blending the new structure with the present structure, noting landscaping is double the Ordinance requirement. Mr. Lindberg added that a 6% to 8% encroachment of the marsh area will take place as a result of the expansion. This encroachment into the flood plain is allowed, a 20% encroachment guideline is permitted. The expansion has been reviewed by the Watershed District, and no objections were made to the 6% to 8% encroachment. Mr. Lindberg said the storm sewer system would be improved, filtering out more sand and forming a retention pond which would improve the quality of run-off water. Mr. Lindberg pointed out the parking and traffic concern, stating at present 550 cars come in and go out of the site daily. One of the problems found on the site by Westwood is left-hand turns; and as a result the suggestion was made to find another point of egress and ingress. It appears that for purposes of emergency exiting and the elimination of left hand turns adding a driveway to the north accessing Londonderry is the best solution. The driveway would be adequately screened. Mr. John Loper, Mr. Peter Shank,and residents of Londonderry Townhomes were present. Mr. Loper submitted to the Commission a written statement expressing the feelings of the residents of Londonderry Townhomes and a signed petition opposing the construction of a drive access to Londonderry Road by Honeywell, Inc. ) note: Staff refers to the Road in question as Londonderry Road, Residents of Londonderry Townhome at times refer to the road as Duncan Lane.) Mr. Loper began by reading the letter from the residents of Londonderry Townhomes to the Planning Commission. "The homeowners in the Londonderry Townhouse complex are deeply concerned about the Honeywell plan to put a road from Duncan Lane into their property which lies to the south. Duncan Lane is a pretty little incline down to Nine Mile Creek and was not intended to become a main thourogfare. It is about 180 feet long and has a 70 foot wide city right-of-way that the Townhouse Association has sodded, landscaped, sprinkled and maintained for about 15 years. It is the only entrance and exit road for the Londonderry residents. We object to the proposed road for the following reasons: Honeywell owns about 1500 feet of land immediately adjacent to Lincoln Drive, property that could easily accommodate another entrance or exit for their parking lots. The location of the parking areas on the plat plan shows that a road off of Duncan Lane would require traffic to drive behind and around their building into the three major parking areas. The large increase in traffic on Duncan Lane will greatly restrict movement in and out of Londonderry, and it will adversely affect our quality of life as well as our property values. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to ask Honeywell to delete the Duncan Lane driveway from their plan." Mr. Loper explained that on or about the 1st of November residents of Londonderry Townhomes received a invitation from Honeywell, Inc. to attend a meeting regarding the proposed expansion. It was discovered at that meeting where the proposed road access was to be constructed. Mr. Loper stated that the residents of Londonderry Townhomes have no objection to the proposed expansion and find it very well done. Their objection is to the proposed access onto Duncan Lane. Mr. Loffer stated the Developer deeded Duncan Lane to the City in exchange for pavement of the road down to the bridge over Nine Mile Creek; the bridge is owned by the Londonderry Townhome Association. Mr. Loper further explained that the area around the creek has been maintained by the Association. Sprinklers have been added, and the area has been landscaped. Large stones have been put along the edge of the road to prevent damage to the terrain from vehicles who turn around in the area. Mr. Loper said residents of Londonderry feel that Lincoln Drive has adequate space for installation of left turn lanes, and another access to handle Honeywell traffic. Mr. Peter Shank addressed the Commission stating the Associations concern regarding the road access is valid. Mr. Shank, using graphics, pointed out alternative uses of Lincoln Drive , a possibility would be adding an additional drive entrance/exit which in his opinion would help the elimination of left-hand turns. Mr. Shank feels that the proposed road access by Honeywell is at the expense of the residents of Londonderry Townhomes. Duncan Lane is a beautiful, charming road and the additional signage needed for the proposed access would have a negative effect on the Londonderry Townhomes. Mr. Shank said the road would essentially become a commercial entrance to a commercial facility. Mr. Shank asked the Commission to seriously consider alternative road access. Mr. Loper pointed out to the Commission that Duncan Lane is a residential street that abutts commercial property. Duncan Lane is the only access to Lincoln Drive, by residents of Londonderry. Mr. Loper questioned if m?.xing a residential street with a commercial driveway would be establishing a precedent. Mr. Loper also expressed concern that if the proposed road access is approved the street will then be used as a delivery and construction road during the course of expansion construction. Mr. Lopfer commented on the steep slope of Duncan Lane. Mr. Koppy, representing Honeywell, said the proposed access will result in the reduction of left-hand.turns which will benefit not only Honeywell, but the residents of Londonderry Townhomes. Mr. Koppy stated the reason for considering the proposed road access resulted from the traffic study. Mechanical counters were placed at the Londonderry and Lincoln corner, the entrance of Honeywell and below. Manual counters were also placed at the corner of the Honeywell entrance. Even though stacking and the steep slope of Londonderry Road were acknowledged issues, the access to Londonderry road was found to be the best solution. A plus factor of the proposed access is that the City will take the road from the blue to the red which will result in quicker snow removal. Mr. Koppy using a chart highlighted the traffic study numbers, indicating proposed traffic lights and 4 -way stop. Mrs. Helen McClelland expressed her view on the proposed Development Plan. Mrs. McClelland stated she was very pleased with the expansion, and found no fault with the design and landscaping. Mrs. McClelland did express extreme displeasure with the proposed drive access from Honeywell to Londonderry Road. Mrs. McClelland felt little consideration was given to the residents of Parkwood Knolls in the planning of this road access, which would affect them as well as the residents of Londonderry Townhomes. Mrs. McClelland pointed out that Lincoln Drive was designed to handle a large volume of traffic, in her opinion Londonderry Road/Duncan Lane is a small road with a bad grade, minimal stacking capabilities and unable to handle a large increase in traffic volume. Mrs. McClelland further added she felt a traffic -signal should be placed on Lincoln Drive in addition to the proposed lights on the ramp. Mr. John Skagerberg agreed with her. Mr Larsen responded that the City Council approved signals for the ramps. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, clarified points regarding the traffic issue. 1). Three traffic -signals will be installed, two at the ramps and one at Smentana Drive. The placing of these signals are a result of very heavy traffic flow volumes. Lincoln Drive does not meet the traffic flow requirements that warrant a traffic signal. 2) If a 4 -way stop is placed, all traffic will have access, not only the ones on Lincoln Drive. o 3) If Honeywell uses only Lincoln Drive accesss, it will result in increased volumes of left turns at the Lincoln and Londonderry Intersection, which will result in a conflict with the residents of Parkwood Knolls and Londonderry Townhomes. 4) It is felt that a balanced blend of commercial and residential can be maintained. Commercial use is high in the morning as residential use leaves, the reverse happening in the evening. Mr. Hoffman stated he understood the feelings of the residents, but the Edina side of the freeway does not generate the volume of traffic that would warrant a traffic signal at the Lincoln Drive -Londonderry intersection.' Mr. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman what will happen if cars exiting Honeywell stack on Londonderry and cut off the residents trying to leave Londonderry Townhomes. Mr. Hoffman explained that Honeywell does not have free access to the public roadway. A stop sign will be put at the exit of Honeywell to the public road. Mr. Del Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman if in staffs opinion the proposed road access is the best possible solution. Mr. Hoffman said to supply a balance that does not favor one leg of the intersection over the other this solution is the best solution. Mr. Hoffman said staff agree this access is a detriment to the residents of Londonderry Townhomes but in community interest staff feel this is the best solution. Mrs. McClelland stated she understands the staff concept, but feels Lincoln Drive should be the access. Mr. John Bailey expressed his concern and agreement with Mrs. McClelland. Mr. John Palmer motioned for approval of the Final Development subject to staff conditions. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: John Palmer, John Skagerberg, William Lewis, Del Johnson, Virginia Shaw Nays: Jane Paulus, Gordon Johnson, Phil Sked, Helen Mcclelland, John Bailey. The motion failed. Mr. Griswald of Londonderry Townhomes voiced his concern that Duncan Lane is the only access Londonderry Townhome residents have to Lincoln Drive. If Londonderry Road traffic increases the chances of residents to access Lincoln Drive worsens. Mrs. McClelland moved that the building expansion plans of Honeywell be approved but the Commission requests that the traffic circulation be re -worked and brought back to the Commission for review. The motion died for lack of second. A discussion ensued between Commission members, staff and Honeywell members on how to word the motion. Mr. John Palmer moved that the Commission approve the plan with the exception of the traffic conditions. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. LD -85-12 David Shank and Suzyn Ware 4301-05 West 62nd Street Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponents are requesting a party wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for approval of the party wall division. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, cQ,c� aq, Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary