Loading...
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,