HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 08024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES ON THE MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1988 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Del Johnson,
Lee Johnson, Geof Workinger, John Palmer, Jane Paulus
and David Runyan
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Bailey, William Lewis, Virginia Shaw
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-87-3
United Properties
&
Hedberg Site
S-87-11
R-1 Single Family to MD -6
Mixed Development District
South Edina Development Company
First Addition
Mr. Larsen presented his staff report noting changes to the proposal since
preliminary approval. Changes made are loss of the proposed health club, minor
changes to the park (i.e. relocation of the park building), reduction in square
footage in retail and office space and reduction in the number of housing units.
Mr. Larsen reported Phase I includes 276 housing units, 201,000 square feet of
retail space, 107,00 square feet of office space, and an eight screen theatre.
Peter Jarvis, Dennis Sutliff, BRW., Inc., Larry Laukka, Dick Anderson,
Laukka Development Company, Warren Beck, Gabbert and Beck, Lance Norderhus,
Eagle Enterprises and Mrs. and Mrs. John Hedberg were present.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Jarvis if roadway completion of Minnesota
Drive would be completed during Phase I development. Mr. Jarvis responded the
majority of roadway improvements would be completed during or before the
development of Phase I. Mr. Hoffman added these improvements include the
completion of Minnesota Drive, rebuilding West 76th Street and France Avenue,
construction of Edinborough Way and Parklawn Avenue. Mr. Hoffman added Hennepin
County forecasts 1990 as completion of improvements along France Avenue.
Commissioner G. Johnson questioned Mr. Jarvis about the previously discussed
skyway option. Mr. Jarvis explained the skyway option has remained, but not as
part of Phase I. He added the skyway system has received mixed reviews and
remains a City policy decision. Mr. Jarvis pointed out the proposed transit
system may eliminate the need for a skyway system.
Commissioner D. Johnson questioned if the loss of the health club and
replacing it with retail would increase traffic. Mr. Jarvis said the final site
plans reduction in density from what was originally proposed has reduced traffic
between 18%-19%. The elimination of the health club and the addition of retail
should not create any additional traffic concerns. Mr. Jarvis noted there is an
option that the lower level of one of the proposed retail buildings may be
leased by a health club for aerobic classes, nautilus machines, weights etc.,
but not courts.
Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Jarvis to explain the water feature of the
park. Mr. Jarvis said this aspect of the project was carefully and thoroughly
studied. It was found that ponding areas should be constructed with an 8 foot
depth sloping to 4 feet around the perimeter. This depth reduces the
possibility of the formation of algae. The ponds bottom and sides will be
composed of a synthetic material and covered with a 6-8 inch layer of sand. Mr.
Jarvis noted that further study is required between them and the City if boats
will be allowed on the ponds. Continuing Mr. Jarvis said the DNR has indicated
they will approve the ponds being maintained by a well. This will insure a
constant water level. Mr. Jarvis also noted the possibility of using the ponds
as an irrigation system.
A discussion ensued regarding possible parking problems that may occur as a
result of high use of the park. Mr. Jarvis explained the 2 proposed pedestrian
bridges from the housing project to the park should eliminate the -need for those
residents to use a vehicle to get to the park. Mr. Jarvis added he feels
parking for the park will be adequate.
Mr. Laukka presented to the Commission renderings of the proposed housing
development. Highlights of the proposed housing are as follows:
1) Six U shaped buildings totaling between 240 and 276 housing units.
40-48 units per building.
2) Proposed square footage of the units range in size from 700 square
feet - 1,650 square feet.
3) Anticipated market price of the units are between $60,000 - $135,000.
It should be noted that the proposed units are slightly larger than
the units at Edinborough.
4) Option of an elevator. That option will be based on what the market
dictates.
5) The materials of the proposed housing will be brick (brick per
building may be 30%) and vinyl siding.
6) Central air-conditioning as opposed to wall air conditioning units.
Commissioner Paulus asked Mr. Laukka the time frame for the build out for
the housing units. Mr. Laukka said he anticipates the project to be completed
within 3-4 years depending on the market, interest rates, etc. Commissioner
Paulus asked if complete development of the park depends on completion of the
housing. She added she has some concern regarding this if the market becomes
"soft" for condominiums. Mr. Laukka said the park can be completely developed
without completion of the housing project. He added he feels very positive
about the proposed housing.
Mr. Dennis Sutliff briefed the Commission on the proposed medical office
building. He explained it will consist of six stories but visually it will
appear as five (one story is below grade). The materials will be constructed of
reflective glass with concrete. The parking allocation for the proposed medical
office building is 600 vehicles. The proposed office building will be composed
of between 25-28 suites.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked for clarification of the roadway route for
the proposed "jitney". Mr. Sutliff with graphics traced the route of the jitney
which will connect the Hedberg site with Edinborough, Southdale, Galleria and
the Southdale Medical Building.
Commissioner Paulus moved to recommend final rezoning approval and final
site plan approval for Phase I subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Palmer
seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
II. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
a-
Hoogenakker, Sec7i6tary
I