HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 09-07 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, John Bailey, Lee Johnson, Del
Johnson, Helen McClelland, Gordon Johnson, David Runyan,
John Palmer, Jane Paulus and Geof Workinger
MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Shaw
STAFF PRESENT: Philip Dommer, Senior Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner D. Johnson moved for approval of the March 3, 1988 Board of
Appeals and Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Palmer seconded the
motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Palmer moved for approval of the July 27, 1988 Community
Development and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Paulus
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Commissioner Workinger moved for approval of the August 24, 1988 Community
Development and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Commissioner D. Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-88-5 Preliminary Rezoning, PRD -4, Planned Residence
& District to PSR -4, Planned Senior Citizen District,
S-88-10 RPI Services, Inc. and Preliminary Plat Approval
for Elder Homestead
General Location: The northwest quadrant of the intersection of York
Avenue and Parklawn Avenue.
Mr. Dommer presented his staff report noting the proposed use and
development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
objectives of the Southeast Edina Plan. Staff is comfortable with the density
issue given the cluster concept and use of the property, its proximity to 494
and the major roadway improvements in the area associated with the Hedberg
project. This type of project also warrants some consideration for reduced
parking. This can comfortably be handled by a Proof of Parking Agreement should
the proponent submit evidence to support the reduced parking.
Staff recommends preliminary zoning and plat approval contingent on the
following:
1. Final Rezoning
2. Final Plat Approval
3. County review and approval of the York Avenue access
4. Proof of Parking Agreement
5. 24 foot two way drive aisles
6. Approved drainage plan
7. Approved landscape plan
8. Dedication of sufficient right of way for a new right turn lane
from York Avenue south onto Parklawn Avenue
9. Maintenance and repair of Parklawn sidewalk
10. Installation of street light wires in split conduit at drives
11. Transfer of the parcel north and west of 7500 York and south
of Parklawn from the proponent to 7500 York to satisfy its
open space requirement.
Mr. Brian Pellowski, Robert Peterson and Arvid Elness were present
representing RPI. Services Inc.
Mr. Pellowski informed the Commission RPI, Services developed a project
similar to the presented proposal in Minnetonka. He added the facility in
Minnetonka is operating efficiently and meeting the needs of its elderly
residents. Commissioner McClelland asked if the facility in Minnetonka has
experienced any problems with parking, noting the parking stalls on the proposed
site are less than what is required by the City's ordinance. Mr. Pellowski told
the Commission the Minnetonka facilrity has 13 parking stalls. Two residents at
that facility have their drivers license, needless to say parking has not been a
problem. Mr. Pellowski added the residents that will inhabit the proposed
building are individuals 75 years + in age who need personal care to meet their
daily needs. He noted very few individuals are capable of operating a car which
is why the need for parking stalls is minimal. Commissioner G. Johnson said he
has a concern regarding the curb cut on York Avenue. He added the speed allowed
on York at that point is 35 m.p.h., which many vehicles exceed, another curb cut
may be a safety concern. Mr. Elness told the Commission the elimination of the
curb cut would not be a problem. Mr. Elness explained to the Commission that
changes have occurred with the proposal. The proposal has been revised to 3
stories, instead of the original 4 stories and the number of units has been
reduced from the original 80 to 72. With the aide of graphics Mr. Elness
explained the facility and traffic flow. He added based on his experience 41
parking stalls are more than adequate for this facility. He noted that this
facility will be considered the "flagship" for the developers therefore assuring
the Commission it will be a quality development. Commissioner G. Johnson
commented that it may be beneficial for the City to look at the possibility of
requiring less parking stalls than proposed to gain more greenspace on this
site. He added in his opinion the proponent and City should enter into a proof
of parking agreement. Commissioner G. Johnson also recommended that the City
require garages on this site. The addition of garages can be worked into the
proof of parking agreement. Commissioner McClelland expressed enthusiasm for
the concept of this proposal but agreed with Commissioner G. Johnson's
recommendation of a proof of parking agreement with the inclusion of garage
stalls. Mr. Peterson responded that RPI would also be favorable to the
suggestion of additional greenspace but questioned what the proof of parking
agreement entails. Commissioner G. Johnson explained when the City requires a
proof of parking agreement it is asking the proponent to enter into a written
agreement stating that should the need arise for additional parking and garages,
parking spaces and garages must then be developed on site to meet the
requirements stipulated by City Ordinance. Mr. Elness stated RPI., Inc. would
find it agreeable to enter into a proof of parking agreement with the City.
A discussion ensued regarding the reduction of hardsurface parking . Mr.
Dommer calculated that with the reduction of units from 80 to 72, the parking
stall requirement would be 54. He added that if the Commission regarded the
existing facility in Minnetonka where there are 13 stalls for 29 units as a good
indicator for parking then 33 stalls would be needed for 72 units. Commissioner
Runyan told the Commission he is very comfortable with staff recommendations and
the recommendation of entering into a proof of parking agreement between the
City and the proponent. He added additional greenspace vs. hardsurface parking
is a very favorable plus for this site.
Commissioner G. Johnson moved to recommend preliminary plat and preliminary
rezoning approval subject to staff conditions with the recommendation that #3 of
the staff conditions be eliminated, the Commission recommends no access on York
Avenue, with the additional recommendation that the City and the proponent enter
into a proof of parking agreement with the condition of garage inclusion
pursuant to the requirements stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance, with the
further recommendation that the parking stalls stipulated on the plat be revised
from the original 41 parking stalls to 33 parking stalls to reflect the
reduction in units from 80 to 72 thereby creating additional greenspace.
Commissioner Paulus seconded the motion.
A brief discussion ensued regarding change in use if the facility changes
ownership. It was concluded that a change in use would be unlikely due to the
configuration of the proposed dwelling units and there relatively small square
footage. If the use should change from the requested PSR zoning, City staff,
the Commission and Council would be required to review the change and if changes
were required they would have to be met during rezoning process or final
development process.
Upon roll call vote: Ayes: L. Johnson; J. Bailey, D. Johnson, G. Johnson,
H. McClelland, W. Lewis, D. Runyan, J. Palmer, J. Paulus, G. Workinger.
Motion carried.
Z-88-6 Preliminary Rezoning, R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District
& to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District, Peggy C. Erhardt
S-88-11 Estate and Preliminary Plat Approval for Erhardt Addn.
Mr. Dommer presented the staff report and noted the proposed plat and
rezoning is consistent with the principles and land use designations set forth
in the Edina Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends preliminary rezoning and preliminary plat approval
conditioned on:
1. Final Rezoning
2. Final Plat Approval
3. Subdivision Dedication
4. Curb Cut Location Approval
5. Separate Utility Connections
Mr. Robert and Ronald Erhardt were present.
Mr. Ron Erhardt explained to the Commission the property in question is the
estate of their mother. He added one of them would reside in the existing house
and the other would reside in the proposed new double bungalow. Mr. R. Erhardt
said this piece of property has been in the family for many years.
A brief discussion ensued on the way the plat was subdivided. Mr. R.
Erhardt explained the subdivision lines were suggested by the surveyor and city
staff to gain a more private rear yard for the proposed double dwelling unit.
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend preliminary rezoning and
preliminary plat approval on the basis of the grandfather clause and subject to
staff conditions. Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. Ayes: L. Johnson,
D. Johnson , G. Johnson, J. Bailey, H. McClelland, W. Lewis, J. Palmer, J.
Paulus, G. Workinger, D. Runyan. Motion carried.
5-88-9 Preliminary Plat Approval for Edina Highlands 2nd Addition
Steven L. Utne
General Location: 5257 Lochloy Drive
Lot 6, Block 1, Edina Highlands
Mr. Dommer presented the staff report and noted the subject property is a
developed single family lot with an area of 35,671 square feet. The proponent
has submitted a preliminary plat which would create one new buildable lot. The
existing house would remain. The new lot has a relatively steep slope to the
east and south. The new lot would contain 14,365 square feet and the lot for
the existing home would contain 21,306 square feet. Both lots comply with all
Zoning Ordinance requirements for single family lots. In 1964 a similar
proposal was presented which received Preliminary Approval but was never brought
in for Final Approval. The frontage of the new lot at that time was 75 feet.
Mr. Dommer added the subdivision of lots within established plats is becoming
relatively common. The Edina Comprehensive Plan has stated several principles
which address such subdivisions. Specifically the Plan seeks to allow further
subdivision of developed single family lots only if the neighborhood character
and symmetry are preserved and calls for larger lot sizes for single family
dwellings with steep slopes. Mr. Dommer concluded by applying these principles,
the staff cannot comfortably support the subdivision as presented. The frontage
of the new lot is at least 24 feet less than the lot with the least frontage in
Edina Highlands and the new lot is smaller than approximately 3/4 of the other
lots in the plat, despite its approximately 26 percent slope.
The proponent Mr. Utne and his representative Mr. Patrick Naisero were
present. Interested neighbors were present.
Commissioner McClelland told the Commission after reviewing the staff
report and the submitted plat she cannot support this subdivision request. She
added approval of this subdivision would violate the character and symmetry of
the neighborhood. She pointed out the majority of lots in this area are larger
than the lots of the proposed subdivison.
Mr. Naisero explained to the Commission only recently Mr. Utne was made
aware that the lot in question was previously given subdivision approval. Mr.
Naisero told the Commission the previously approved subdivision plat would be
submitted tonight as the revised plat. Continuing Mr. Naisero said the
vegetation and terrain will reduce any negative impact and the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood will be maintained. He pointed out the subdivision
meets Ordinance standards and no variances are required. He added 1/4 of the
lots in the Highland area are smaller than the proposed lots.
Commissioner Paulus questioned where a building pad would be positioned.
With graphics Mr. Naisero submitted copies of the revised plat depicting the
footprint. He noted the house would be a walkout due to the terrain.
Mrs. Spring, the original platter of the Highlands told the Commission she
opposes any subdivision in the Highlands. She explained the area was platted
with lots of different sizes and shapes to fit the topography. She added
developers should not be able to come into an area and subdivide for profit.
She concluded the Highlands should remain as originally platted.
Mr. Hossman Brown, 5261 Lochloy explained to the Commission he represents
residents of the Highlands. He added the proposed subdivision does not fit with
the overall plan for the Highlands. He informed the Commission the Highlands
were developed with private covenants which have expired but retain the option
to be re -instated. These covenants support the spaciousness and open feeling of
the Highlands. Mr. Brown pointed out the majority of homes in the Highlands are
ranch homes that are wider than the proposed lots. Continuing Mr. Brown
reported there are 69 lots in the Highland subdivision and 10 of those lots are
larger than the lot that is requesting to be subdivided. After subdivision the
two lots would be smaller than the majority of lots in the area.
Mike Bowlin, resident of the area told the Commission he opposes this
subdivision. He pointed out the houses in the Highland all have been positioned
very carefully with proper spacing between them. He expressed a concern that
possible drainage problems could occur if this proposal is approved.
Mr. Naisero told the Commission Mr. Utne is interested and committed to
keeping the neighborhood beautiful. Mr. Utne will remain in his present home,
he has no plans to move. Mr. Naisero added no covenants have been violated, no
variances are needed and the proposed lots meet all ordinance standards. Mr.
Utne informed the Board that during the heavy rains of last summer he had no
flooding problems on his property. Commissioner L. Johnson also questioned
drainage and asked Mr. Dommer if the City's engineering staff had looked into
the matter. Mr. Dommer said on a staff level drainage was questioned. It was
found that the property should drain naturally towards Highland Park.
Commissioner J. Palmer moved to recommend denial of the subdivision
request. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes: H. McClelland, D.
Johnson, G. Johnson, W. Lewis, J. Paulus, L. Johnson, J. Palmer, D. Runyan G.
Workinger. Abstain: J. Bailey. Motion carried.
LD -88-9 BTO Development Corporation
Fairview Southdale Hospital Healthcare Services Corporation
6401 France Avenue South
Mr. Dommer informed the Commission Fairview Southdale Hospital and
Healthcare Services Corporation is applying for a simple lot division of their
property to annex approximately 20,814 square feet from the Hennepin County
C.A.S.H. Number 62 right-of-way. This is necessary to maintain appropriate
setbacks between the parking ramp and the crosstown highway.
Mr. Dommer concluded staff recommends approval.
Mr. Allan Hill representing BTO,Development Corporation was present.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved for approval. Commissioner Workinger
seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
III. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
GN
Ja ulin Hoogenakker, Sec -r tart'