HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 07-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1987 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, John Bailey,
Helen McClelland, Del Johnson, Gordon
Johnson, David Runyan, Virginia Shaw and Jane
Paulus
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Palmer, Lee Johnson and Phil Sked
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. Del Johnson moved for approval of the July 1, 1987
Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Mrs.
McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion
carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
S-87-7 Charles D. Luther
4800 Rolling Green Parkway
Lot 29, Rolling Green
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission they requested tabling
5-87-7 allowing the proponent time to comply with their request
of revising the preliminary plat, to provide information on lot
sizes in the area and to provide information on past
subdivision's in Rolling Green.
Mr. Larsen pointed out that 89 lots were researched with the
average size of all lots being 58,415 square feet. He added if
the Short property (8 Merilane) is excluded the average lot size
is 49,942 square feet. He noted all lot sizes were calculated by
the proponent's surveyor. City Staff compiled the list of
approved and denied subdivisions.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Luther were present. Residents
of the Rolling Green Neighborhood were present. Connor Schmid,
4711 Meadow Road an attorney representing Rolling Green
neighbors in opposition to Mr. Luther's proposal was also
present.
Mr. Schmid, explained to the Commission he was retained by
Mr. and Mrs. Kip Knelman of 4812 Rolling Green Parkway and other
members of the neighborhood to speak in opposition to this
proposal. Mr. Schmid said Mr. and Mrs. Knelman reside on a lot
containing approximately 70,500 square feet. He added this lot
is adversely impacted by this proposal as is the whole
neighborhood. Mr. Schmid pointed out the Rolling Green
neighborhood is comprised of large, spacious and proportionately
balanced established lots. He said in purchasing their home at
4812 Rolling Green Parkway Mr. and Mrs. Knelman did not
anticipate future development capabilities in an established
neighborhood. Mr. Schmid told the Commission there is
overwhelming opposition to this proposal. Mr. Schmid said lot
size is irrelevant, the real issue is retaining the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood and preventing the possibility of
setting a precedent if this request is approved. If this
proposal is approved it could "open up a can of worms" enabling
property owners in the area to also subdivide their property for
profit. Mr. Schmid referred to'a subdivision on Paddock Road and
a letter sent to Chairman Lewis and the City Attorney regarding
this subdivision which was rejected by the Court. Mr. Schmid
pointed out that Judge rossen then upheld the Rolling Green
covenants and restrictions prohibiting the subdivision of Lot 10,
Rolling Green. Mr. Schmid acknowledged the protective covenants
have expired but this expiration does not change the fact that
the principal developer proposed that each originally platted lot
was to contain one home or residence. Mr. Schmid added during
the early 1950's control was lost resulting in deviations from
the original plat. The Edina City Council at that time indicated
the area should be protected from future subdivisions and
recommended that future subdivisions be reviewed and approved by
the Rolling Green Association. Mr. Schmid noted the City is not
bound by restrictive covenants but these covenants evidence a
plan and establish the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Schmid
stressed the uniqueness of the Rolling Green neighborhood
comparing it to the unique neighborhood of Indian Hills. Mr.
Schmid said this situation is not for averages, if a trend is set
a beautiful and unique neighborhood in Edina could be made into
an average neighborhood. This should not be allowed to happen,
it is not good community planning. Mr. Schmid mentioned to the
Commission the denial of a subdivision in the Indian Hills area
in 1984, and denial of a subdivision proposal in the White Oaks
neighborhood early in 1987. Both rejections by the City Council
recognized that each property if subdivided would be contrary to
the original platting of the neighborhood and the character and
symmetry would be comprised.
Mrs. Olson, 12 Merilane, explained to the Commission she
and her husband looked for 7 years before purchasing their home
in the Rolling Green neighborhood. The reason for the lengthy
search was to find a house in an area which met certain
requirements. These requirements were best met in the Rolling
Green neighborhood. Mrs. Olson pointed out the uniqueness of the
neighborhood and its' high quality. She added it is an area that
offers a choice for those who want an open spacious neighborhood
in the city. Mrs. Olson told the Commission her profession is
real estate. She noted when individuals purchase a home many
purchase it because of its, location and many times the dwelling
itself is secondary. The Rolling Green neighborhood is what is
special, the open feeling and house placement are what is
attractive to many people. Concluding, Mrs. Olson stressed the
U
uniqueness of the neighborhood and the large open spacious
feeling found there. This uniqueness may be compromised by
constructing large homes thus reducing the openness.
Mrs. Olson read for the Commission comments from a Mr. Jerry
Gallagher, 4912 Merilane, who was unable to attend this
meeting. Mr. Gallagher expressed his opposition to the proposal,
questioning the irregular shape of the property.
Mr. Carl Pohlad, 4812 Bywood West, informed the Commission
he recently constructed a new home on Bywood West and thoroughly
enjoys the neighborhood. He added in his opinion it is one of
the best neighborhoods in the Twin Cities and it's uniqueness
should be preserved.
Mr. Bob Stein, 4729 Annaway, told the Commission he
constructed his home 1 year ago. He added the reason for
building a new home in Edina was because it is an established
neighborhood with high quality schools and the amenities of a
established city. He added subdividing the lot would create a
windfall for the proponent and change the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Arthur Schulze, 14 Paddock Road, explained to the
Commission the Rolling Green neighborhood is a neighborhood many
people view as a "dream area". This neighborhood is a very
special neighborhood and if it is divided, others may choose to
divide their lots which would change Rolling Green's unique
character. Mr. Schulze pointed out the previous denials and the
recurring interest to subdivide property in Rolling Green. He
stated past denials signify and re-emphasize Rolling Green's
uniqueness and the decisions made to protect it.
Mr. Paul Smith, resident, told the Commission he and his
wife are strongly opposed to this subdivision. He added they
purchased their home in Rolling Green for the uniqueness of the
area, location and open setting. The house on the property was
secondary to them. Mr. Smith said he foresees future subdivision
requests if this request is approved.
Mr. Luther, in response to comments from residents of
Rolling Green, informed the Commission he grew up in the Rolling
Green neighborhood and resided there for 18 years. He added he
would not propose anything that would harm or change the
character of this neighborhood. Mr. Luther pointed out that the
lot after subdivision would be two 1+ acre lots which in his
opinion are not out of character with the neighborhood. Mr.
Luther pointed out the square footage of the proposed lots is
very similar to the lots in the area. He pointed out on the
block of Rolling Green Parkway the proposed lots would be the
second largest and the sixth largest. Mr. Luther told the
Commission the lot in question does not have restrictions placed
on it. He added many lots in the Rolling Green neighborhood have
had restrictions applied to them but not this lot. Continuing,
Mr. Luther said he proposes to remove the current house, which
many people in the neighborhood view as an eyesore. Mr. Luther
commented not all residents in Rolling Green are opposed to the
subdivision. Mr. Luther concluded that he felt his request was
not unreasonable and stressed he would not propose anything that
would be detrimental to the neighborhood of Rolling Green. He
asked the Commission to hear this case individually on its
merits.
Mr. Kip Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green told the Commission the
primary reason his family moved to the Rolling Green neighborhood
was due to it's unique character. He added if the Planning
Commission looks at an aerial of the entire City of Edina the
neighborhood of Rolling Green would be easily identified due to
the large open spaces and house placement. This area is distinct
in the City of Edina. It would be a disaster to subdivide any
property. He stressed any subdivision would change the character
of the neighborhood. Mr. Knelman stated lot size is not an
issue but the character, symmetry, and unique balance of the
neighborhood are the important issues. Any change or alteration
to this balance is detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Dave Olson, 12 Merilane, stated for the record he signed
the petition opposing the subdivision to protect the character of
the neighborhood. Mr. Olson said he would like to eliminate
future subdivision potential in this neighborhood.
Mrs. Schneider, 9 Merilane, informed the Commission her
property is one of the largest parcels of land in the Rolling
Green neighborhood, over 4 acres. She said her parcel could be
easily subdivided but she would never dream of dividing the
property for profit. The character of the whole Rolling Green
area would be changed if this subdivision is approved.
Mr. Runyan said he was involved in the previous subdivision
request in 1977. He added this proposal is different from the
previous proposal. He pointed out the previous proposal retained
the home which created one lot that was quite small and
undesirable. Mr. Runyan said in looking at the area
pragmatically he visualizes only 4 pieces of property that have
subdivision potential, one being 8 Merilane. He told the
residents he understands their concern that in approving this
subdivision the "floodgates" would open creating more subdivision
requests. Continuing, he added in his opinion this request is
reasonable and the result would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Susan Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green told the Commission
she would prefer to view this proposal on the issues of
subdivision, precedent setting and character and not lot size.
She added since lot size seems important in this process the
proposed lots are still smaller than the average lot size. The
property in question is also on a curve which reduces the
buildable space. Mrs. Knelman pointed out she resides in the
home next to the proposed subdivision and large setbacks are
established for her home. She noted if the character of the
neighborhood is to be retained, the proponent must comply with
established neighborhood setbacks. She wondered how the
Commission could drawn a line on what is subdividable, why would
a 1 acre lot be the magic size? Mrs. Knelman asked "How•can a
standard be set on what is subdividable?"
Mr. Luther told the Commission by his calculations 790 of
the lots in the Rolling Green area are below the average.
Mr. Gordon Johnson pointed out the mean may be the most
efficient way to calculate lot size due to the overly large #8
Merilane. Continuing, he said he has studied the area very
carefully and in calculating lot sizes for potential subdivisions
he found 3 properties with subdivision potential. He clarified
that his determination of possible subdivisions does not mean
these properties will be subdivided, or that he or the Commission
feel they ought to be divided. Mr. Johnson added over the years
17 proposals to subdivide Rolling Green lots have been proposed.
Thirteen requests have been approved, the majority approved
immediately after the final plat of Rolling Green. Four times
subdivision requests have been denied. Mr. Johnson said approval
of a subdivision is not made strictly by looking at the numbers
presented. All factors are reviewed, including character,
maintaining symmetry , site lines and neighborhood impact. Mr.
Johnson pointed out Edina is a community of continuing transition
and change. Commissioners also look at proposals and see if they
u placed on the Community. Mr. Johnson concluded he is of the
opinion that Mr. Luther has complied with the requirements
stipulated by the City. He believes the area will not be
adversely impacted by this proposal if sensitivity is used in
developing the lots.
Mr. Raymond Clausen, 4820 Rolling Green Parkway asked the
Commission to take into consideration the shape of the lot. The
lot size is more than 1 acre but the pie shape of the lot results
in a smaller area for building pads. He added one home on this
lot would be appropriate due to its' odd configuration. Mr.
Clausen indicated he felt in the dark because he has not viewed
any building plans, or seen building placement depicted on the
plat.
Mrs. Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green Parkway, said the
configuration of the lot will make it difficult for the
proponents to place a house that will comply with the established
setbacks of the neighborhood.
Mr. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Luther if he has developed
footprints for the proposed lots. Mr. Luther said he has a
rendering of two homes of equal size but no footprints.
Mrs. McClelland said a factor also considered in approving a
subdivision is topography. Many times subdivisions have been
denied due to the steep topography. She pointed out on this site
topography does not play a large factor. Mrs. McClelland said
this Commission looks at more than square footage, many factors
are considered as Mr. Johnson has mentioned. Mrs. McClelland
said she believes this subdivision can be accomplished without an
adverse impact to the neighborhood. Mrs. McClelland pointed out
the original platting of the block containing 4800 Rolling Green
Parkway contained 6 lots, at this time there are 9 lots. Mrs.
Knelman commented the majority of subdivisions in the area
occurred during its' early development and since the early 1950's
very little subdivision has taken place. She added the
information put together'by city staff includes properties not
under the Rolling Green jurisdiction.
Mr. Del Johnson asked if the Planning Commission as a body
could put setback restrictions on an approval. Mr. Larsen said
restrictions are not something normally recommended but can be
attached to the approval. In this case sideyard or frontyard
setbacks could be recommended to meet with the approval of city
staff.
A discussion ensued focusing on correctly wording a motion
to include setback restrictions and requiring the proponent to
develop a building pad.
Mrs. Gordon Johnson moved to recommend approval of the
subdivision with the restriction that the proponent must develop
building pads as a contingency of approval and the structures
must maintain sideyard setbacks that are compatible with the
neighborhood regardless of the minimum requirements of the
Ordinance. These conditions must meet with the approval of the
City Planner and be subject to the appeal process, either by the
City Council or the Board of Appeals.
Mrs. Paulus commented that initially she felt the proposed
subdivision mirrored the property to the rear but upon further
study she does not agree. She added she feels the area has been
chopped up and does not think that is reason to keep chopping.
Mrs. Paulus pointed out her real concern is that the economic
conditions will push the two proposed homes to the maximum
footage. This would create very large homes and reduce the
spacious feeling of the neighborhood.
Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote:
John Bailey
Aye
Helen McClelland
Aye
Del Johnson
Aye
Gordon Johnson
Aye
David Runyan
Aye
Virginia Shaw
Aye
Jane Paulus
Nay
William Lewis
Aye
The motion carried.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-80-3 Edinborough
C-86-1 Conditional Use Permit
to allow retail sales in
Phase I Office Building
Generally Located: West of York Avenue and south of
West 76th Street
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponents have
submitted plans in support of their request to construct phase 11
office building at Edinborough. As originally approved the
office building contained a gross floor area of 102,000 square
feet and was seven stories in height. The revised plans propose
increasing the floor area to 159,470 square feet. The increase
is accomplished by increasing the size of the footprint and by
adding an eighth floor to the building.
Mr. Larsen pointed out in the Mixed Development District
non-residential floor area is awarded on the basis of housing
production. The basic allowance is 500 square feet of floor area
per housing unit. Edinborough's 596 housing units would allow
298,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. The revised
proposal calls for approximately 269,000 square feet.
In order to provide the additional parking needed for the
larger building a one -level parking deck is provided. The
original plan relied on surface parking. Overall parking is
provided in conformance with Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Larsen said the MD -5 District requires a minimum
building setback of 50 feet from all property lines. The
proposed building provides a 27 foot setback from Edinborough
Way. Thus, a 23 foot setback variance is requested.
Mr. Larsen explained the proposed plan illustrates a service
drive entering the building directly from Edinborough Way. This
curb cut is within 30 feet of the intersection of Edinborough Way
and the future Minnesota Drive. Staff anticipates this will be a
high volume signalized intersection. Traffic conflicts are
likely.
The proponents are requesting that their Conditional Use
Permit be amended to allow retail commercial uses on the first
floor of Phase II. Presently, retail uses are limited to the
first floor of phase I office and the elderly high rise. This
proposal is consistent with the approved concept.
The proposed revisions are consistent with the overall
development concept for Edinborough. The increased size of the
building is well below the maximum floor area allowed. The
setback variance requested will make a skyway connection to
development west of Edinborough more feasible. The connection
will be advantageous to park users and will provide access to the
transit system planned for the Hedberg property.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the
revised Final Development Plan subject to staff approval of a
revised service drive. He added staff also recommends approval
of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with the following
condition.
1. Retail uses are limited to the first floor
of Phase II office.
Mr. Peter Jarvis, and Mr. Dennis Sutliff , BRW and Mr. Rick
Martens, Winfield Development were present.
Mr. Jarvis began his presentation by informing the
Commission the new office building is slightly larger than what
was proposed in the final development plan. Mr. Jarvis added the
market response has been excellent on Phase I, leased space is at
55% and projections are 65% to 700 leased space in the near
future. Mr. Jarvis pointed out the reason for a larger lower
floor plate is to meet market demands. Mr. Jarvis commented on
traffic movements through the park and said they anticipate no
congestion problems. He said all loading, and trash hauling
movements would be segregated. He pointed out the walkway on the
southside will be shifted away from the building to avoid future
constructions problems. The walkway will be 12 feet in width.
The finger park between the office building and condominiums will
be designed as greenspace for shirttail athletics.
Mr. Dennis Sutliff pointed out this plan is a three core
plan which is comprised of the elevator, lobby and restrooms
centrally located and stairwells at either end with a step effect
that graduates in size.
Mr. Gordon Johnson asked if this building will connect with
the park. Mr. Sutliff responded that it does connect with the
park.
Mr. Runyan asked Mr. Sutliff what the distance is between
the housing and the office building. Mr. Sutliff responded that
from property line to property line the distance is 100 feet.
Mrs. McClelland expressed some concern regarding the service
entrance which in her opinion seemed tight. Mr. Runyan pointed
out that in his opinion the queing space also seemed tight. Mr.
Jarvis said it is 2 lanes wide with the stacking capability of 10
cars.
Mrs. Paulus moved to recommend approval of the revised final
development plan subject to staff conditions and staff approval
of a revised service drive and that retail uses are limited to
the first floor of the Phase II office building. Mrs. Shaw
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried.
P-87-5 Thexton Manufacturing Company
7685 Parklawn Avenue
General Location: East of Parklawn Avenue and north of West
77th Street
Request: Building Addition
Mr. Larsen informed'the Commission the subject property is
zoned Planned Industrial District, PID, and is developed with an
office -warehouse building containing approximately 15,134 square
feet. The proponents are requesting approval of a plan to add
approximately 13,000 square feet to the rear of the building and
1,800 square feet to the southwest corner of the existing
building.
Mr. Larsen pointed out based on a break down of the parking
requirement for the individual uses, the building would require a
total of 57 parking stalls. 59 usable parking stalls are
illustrated on site. The Zoning Ordinance, however, would
require 80 spaces based on one space per 400 square feet of gross
floor area. There is room available on site to add up to 27
additional parking stalls if necessary. Since the parking demand
is extremely low for the existing and planned uses, the
proponents have suggested that the additional parking be added
only if needed in the future. This could be accomplished by a
proof -of -parking agreement.
Mr. Larsen added staff has worked with the architect to
eliminate a number of pre-existing non -conforming features and
the plan generally complies with Ordinance requirements. A
variance is necessary, however, for the parking area to the
southeast of the building. The turn around area for the dead end
drive aisle is setback 5 feet from the property line instead of
the required 10 feet. Although dead end drive aisles are
regulated against in the City, the proposed arrangement shown
will be used by a relatively small number of regular employees
and allows for additional greenspace.
Mr. Larsen reported the proponents have submitted a
landscape plan and schedule as required. The exterior materials
of the addition will match the existing building. There will
also be some upgrading of the exterior of the entire building.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the 'Final
Development Plan with the following conditions:
1. A proof of parking agreement
0
2. Staff approval of the landscaping plan and schedule.
3. That the screening wall at the dock area be moved to the
street side of the dock.
Mr. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Larsen where the screening
wall would be placed. Mr. Larsen responded the wall would be
moved to the street side of the dock.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the requested parking
setback variance. The Commission was in agreement that if the
proponent worked with city staff the variance would be
eliminated.
Mrs. McClelland moved to recommend approval subject to
staff conditions and that materials match the existing building
with the additional condition that the proponent work with city
staff to eliminate the parking setback variance. Mrs. Paulus
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried.
LD -87-11 Ken Wright
609 Blake Road
6321 Waterman Avenue
Generally Located: South of Waterman Avenue and east of
Blake Road
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
consists of two parcels which were platted in 1963. Parcel A is
developed with a single family dwelling unit. Parcel B is
vacant. A variance was granted for the substandard lot depth of
Parcel B at the time of platting and the same variance was
renewed in May of this year.
Mr. Larsen added the proponent desires to add the northerly
4 feet of Parcel A to Parcel B. The 4 feet of additional lot
depth will allow the proponent to realize a more flexible floor
plan for a new dwelling within the required front yard and rear
yard setback requirements. It was noted that a request for a
front yard setback variance was denied earlier this year.
The Board of Appeals suggested the proposed lot division as
a way to eliminate the front setback variance.
The proposed division would not alter the conforming status
of Parcel A.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval as
presented.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval. Mrs. Paulus seconded
the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,