HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularAGENGA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1995
7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
September 27, 1995
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
C-95-2
S-95-2
III. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-95-2
LD -95-6
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Steve and Priscilla Williams
Especially for Children
5015 West 70th Street
Preliminary Plat Approval
Joseph Tambornino
6608 Dakota Trail
Preliminary Rezoning
PID, Planned Industrial District to
POD -1, Planned Office District
5229 Eden Avenue
Laurant/Parks Development
7115 Tupa Drive and 7020 Kerry Road
Johnson and Eckberg
Comprehensive Plan Amendment -
Community Facilities Element - Public
Water System
An Ordinance to Amend the City Code
to Reduce the Number of Members of
the Planning Commission and Increase
the Number of Members of The Edina
Zoning Board of Appeals
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1995
7:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, David Byron, Lorelei
Bergman, Nan Faust, David Runyan, Charles Ingwalson,
Geoff Workinger, Helen McClelland, Ann Swenson
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Jackie Hoogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Swenson moved approval of the September 27, 1995, meeting
minutes. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS: This item was taken out of order
LD -95-6 7115 Tupa Drive and 7020 Kerry Road
Johnson and Eckberg
Mr. Larsen informed Commissioners the subject request involves two developed
single dwelling lots. The rear portion of the Kerry lot would split off and attach to the lot
on Tupa Drive. The transferred property is about 10,000 square feet in area. Both lots
would continue to meet Zoning Ordinance standards.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval.
Mr. Mark Solstad, #87 Lee Road, Bloomington, was present representing Mr.
Johnson, 7115 Tupa Drive.
Mr. Solstad pointed out if one views the lots along Tupa Drive, the Johnson lot is
not as deep as the majority of lots along Tupa. This acquisition of land brings this lot
more into conformance with the immediate properties.
Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend lot division approval.
Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
Amendment to Steve and Priscilla Williams
Zoning Ordinance Especially for Children
5015 West 70th Street
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City Council heard the rezoning
request by Mr. Steve Williams/ Especially for Children at their October 16, 1995,
meeting, and recommended that day care be considered as a Conditional Use in the R-
1 zoning district. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would provide
standards for day care as a Conditional Use.
Mr. Larsen reported that Mr. Williams has not applied for a Conditional Use
Permit at this time.
Mr. Larsen informed Commission members the discussion this evening will only
focus on the proposed amendment to the ordinance allowing day care as a Conditional
Use in the R-1 zoning district.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen if he is aware of any day care
facilities operating out of the R-1 district. Mr. Larsen explained day care is permitted as
an accessory use in churches, and schools, and presently there are day care facilities
operating out of many of them, but not as the principal use. Mr. Larsen reported day
care is allowed as a home occupation in residential dwelling units, and city ordinance
limits the number of children to 12.
A brief discussion ensued with the Commission in agreement that the proposed
amendment to the ordinance should be adopted to allow day care as a Conditional Use
in the R-1 Zoning District.
Commissioner Faust moved to recommend adoption of the amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance to allow day care as a Conditional Use in the R-1 Zoning District.
Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
S-95-5 Preliminary Plat Approval
Tambornino Addition
0)
Dr. Joseph Tambornino
Lot 4, Block 6, Indian Hills
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their September 27, 1995, meet they
voted to recommend denial of a three lot subdivision of the Tambornino property. At
the City Council meeting on October 16, 1995, the proponent submitted a revised two
lot plant. Mr. Larsen explained since the Commission had not considered the revised
two lot plat, the Council has referred the request back.
Mr. Larsen told Commission Members that after the City Council meeting, Mr.
Tambornino, while reviewing his three lot proposal, detected a calculation error made
by the surveyor. The error has been corrected, and reduces the size of the variances
required for the three lot subdivision, but does not lessen the number of variances
required. Mr. Larsen said the two lot plat still requires a lot depth variance for Lot 2,
but the size of the variance is reduced from 44 feet to seven feet.
Mr. Larsen concluded, in his opinion, the elimination of one lot greatly improves
the plat from a code compliance standpoint. The original request required lot width ,
depth and area variances for both new lots. Now only a lot depth variance is needed.
Mr. Larsen also added he feels a 40 foot conservation easement is reasonable to add
as a condition of approval. Mr. Larsen said staff recommends approval of the revised
preliminary plat subject to: final plat approval and subdivision dedication.
The proponent, Dr. Joseph Tambornino was present to respond to questions
from the Commission.
Commissioner Runyan questioned Mr. Larsen on the minimum lot depth
calculated for this neighborhood. Mr. Larsen said the lot depth for the neighborhood is
189 feet, the new lot is 182 feet.
Mr. Joseph Tambornino addressed the Commission informing them the surveyor
made a mistake in the original calculations for the three lot subdivision. The three lot
subdivision still requires variances, but not as extreme as originally indicated.
Continuing, Mr. Tambornino asked the Commission if they would reconsider the
original three lot subdivision (noting the revised calculations) proposal at this time.
Chairman Johnson responded he cannot support the request to subdivide the subject
property into three lots, and asked Commission Members if they care to re-examine the
three lot subdivision.
A brief discussion ensued with Commission Members in agreement that they
made their recommendation to the Council to deny the three lot subdivision proposal,
and have not changed their opinion.
Commissioner Swenson moved to deny the request to review the original three
lot subdivision proposal. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted
aye; motion carried.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Tambornino if he would like to proceed with
discussion on the two lot subdivision. Mr. Tambornino said he would like the
Commission to discuss, and act on the two lot subdivision proposal.
Mr. Smith, 6600 Mohawk Trail, said in his opinion, even if the variances are
reduced, a variance is still a variance, adding any subdivision of this property (three or
two) impacts the neighborhood, and another curb cut on Mohawk Trail is unreasonable.
Mr. Smith pointed out the subject property has a Dakota Trail address, so in his opinion
if the lot is subdivided, the curb cut should be located on Dakota Trail, not Mohawk.
Ms. Mary Watson, 6620 Mohawk Trail, said if the Commission is considering
approving the two lot subdivision proposal they should recommend a 40 foot
conservation easement, and questioned if the new house would require a frontyard
setback variance.
Commissioner McClelland agreed that recommending a 40 foot conservation
easement is a good idea, because it protects the existing topography and streetscape
of the neighborhood by prohibiting structures from being constructed within this
restriction. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said as she understands the
easement restriction, structures can be constructed up to the restricted area.
Commissioner McClelland concluded, as she reviewed the site plan, she believes if the
new house is constructed more on the east side of the lot, a frontyard setback variance
may not be required.
Commissioner Faust stated she feels the two lot subdivision is reasonable, and
pointed out that in her opinion, the large lot areas compensate for the lot depth
variance required for the new lot.
Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend preliminary approval of the two
lot subdivision, subject to staff conditions, and the recommendation that a 40 foot
conservation easement be placed along the Mohawk Trail street frontage.
Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
4
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-95-2 Preliminary Rezoning Approval, PID, Planned Industrial
District to POD -1, Planned Office District, 5229 Eden Avenue
LaurantlParks Development
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property is a 5.1 acre site located
south of Eden Avenue and west of the Soo Line railroad track. The development site is
Lot 1 of the proposed Kunz -Lewis subdivision considered by the Commission at their
August 30, 1995, meeting. At this writing the City Council has not acted on the subdivision
proposal.
Mr. Larsen explained the City Council/HRA at their October 6, 1995, meeting,
authorized staff to hire a planning consultant to review proposed private redevelopment
plans and make recommendations to the Council concerning appropriate redevelopment
of the area. The study will take 30-45 days to complete.
Mr. Larsen reported the proposed rezoning would allow redevelopment of the
property with five office buildings totally 94,500 square feet of floor area. Individual
buildings would be either two or three stories in height. The proposed development calls
for 360 parking spaces, of which 89 would be under building spaces.
An office development of this size requires parking at a rate of one space for each
218 square feet of floor area. Thus, a 94,500 square foot office development would
require 417 parking stalls. The proposed plan provides 360 stalls. The proposed plan
suggests five foot parking setbacks along the entire south and east boundaries of the
property. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum setback of 10 feet in this situation.
Mr. Larsen said staff would except the proposed redevelopment to generate
approximately 1,365 total trips per day. The expanded warehouse operation (Kunz Oil)
should generate about 700 total trips. The am and pm peak hour estimates are 70 and 70.
The comparable number for the previously proposed Rainbow Food store was 11,300 total
trips with am and pm peaks of 388 and 369.
Mr. Larsen pointed out access to the site is provided by two Eden Avenue curb cuts.
The easterly curb cut may be too close to the railroad bridge to allow safe sight distance.
The proposed site plan suggests Eden Avenue access for the warehouse building to south
along the easterly side of the site. The Kunz redevelopment proposal is in conflict with this
suggested access, since it requires removal of part of the building proposed by Kunz.
5
Mr. Larsen noted the proposed redevelopment includes a restaurant in building C.
The zoning ordinance provides for retail uses in office developments over 40,000 square
feet. However, no sign age or outside entrance are allowed. The developers have
indicated they want the restaurant open to the general public and are requesting a
variance from code requirements.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff believes the proposed land use is appropriate if the
industrial uses to the south stay. The redevelopment of this site for housing becomes
problematic. Staff could support the land use element and the variance to allow the
restaurant, but not the plan as presented. Mr. Larsen said recommended changes to the
proposal are as follows; Eliminate parking setback variances, reduce floor area to match
available parking, prohibit access to Eden Circle, and provide access to Eden Avenue for
Kunz Oil, and approval of Kunz -Lewis plat.
The proponents Mr. Moarn, and Mr. John Laurent, were present to respond to
questions from Commission Members.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen his feelings on the location and height
of proposed Building A. Mr. Larsen explained according to City Code Building A can be
as high as four stories or 50 feet whichever is less. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr.
Larsen if he noticed Building A is located on the site at its highest point. Mr. Larsen
acknowledged that is true.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if Mr. Gianaobble will still have a parking
problem if this proposal is approved. Mr. Larsen responded Mr. Gianaobble will still have
parking problems, adding the present proposal does not address his needs.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked for clarification on the process this evening,
questioning if the Commission is being requested to comment on, and recommend a
change to the land use, plus the plan presented. Mr. Larsen said in his opinion the focus
this evening, because of some unanswered questions, should be on the requested land
use change, but a proposal has been submitted, therefore action is needed on the
proponents request to rezone.
Commissioner Faust noted Mr. Larsen requested a reduction in building footprint
to meet parking requirements, and asked Mr. Larsen if he has any idea where the
reduction should occur. Mr. Larsen said he has no opinion on where the reduction should
occur, but the parking shortage on this site needs to be addressed, and is something the
developers need to reconsider.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked if the parking calculations were figured only for
office occupancy. Mr. Larsen said that is correct.
n
Commissioner McClelland referred to the inclusion of a restaurant in one of the
proposed office buildings, and asked if the proposed restaurant is sit-down or take-out.
Mr. Larsen said he is not sure if the developer has decided on the type of restaurant they
desire.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if this site is located in a tax increment
district. Mr. Larsen responded the site is located in a tax increment district.
Commissioner McClelland explained to the proponents the Commission over the
past few years has heard a number of different proposals regarding this site, adding she
is a bit cautious when viewing something that appears attractive. She explained if all
information is not available, what we think we are approving can be so different from the
final outcome. Commissioner McClelland said her concern is not with the proposed land
use, office use is appropriate, but with the layout of the office park, and the unanswered
questions.
Commissioner Ingwalson noted the holding pond, and asked Mr. Larsen if the pond
is a requirement. Mr. Larsen said recent laws dictate that water run-off must be captured
on site. Development of a NURP pond is a requirement, but the preliminary plans before
you this evening are not exact on the size of the pond. Mr. Larsen said that is another
reason support of the concept this evening is difficult because there are so many unknown
factors, parking is short, and if the size of the pond needs to be increased, parking will be
reduced to create area for the pond.
Commissioner Runyan asked if the buildings will be individually owned. Mr. Larsen
said he is not sure how ownership will be addressed. Mr. Moarn interjected they plan to
own the buildings, and lease them, but there may be a tenant who is willing to buy one
building.
Mr. Chris Moarn, member of the development team, explained to Commission
Members their research has found the market to be very good for small quality office
parks, and explained to the Commission he is involved in an office park development
located in Wayzata. Continuing, Mr. Moarn said one reason for the attraction to small
office parks is tenants want to be closer to home. Cutting down travel time to be with
family is very important.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Moarn what type of tenants would be interested
in leasing office space at a park this size. Mr. Moarn said they have had discussions with
real estate firms, and law offices, with the typical size of leased office area between 2,000
and 3,000 square feet. Mr. Moarn said presently Edina does not meet the demand for the
executive suite.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Moarn if he knows if the proposed site has the
7
capacity to service high-tec on-line computer needs, adding some areas do not have the
ability to meet the high-tec demands of some companies. Mr. Moarn said that is a good
point, responding he is not sure if the Grandview area is located in an area that has
capacity to meet those needs.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Moarn if he is aware if the tenants in Wayzata
require less parking than the tenants in Edina. Mr. Moarn said he is not sure, he said the
Wayzata location also has access to public parking.
Commissioner Faust asked how many underground parking stalls are located on
site. Mr. John Laurent responded there are 80 underground parking stalls, adding the site
has the potential for ramping.
Mr. Laurant with graphics explained the proposal to Commission Members.
Commissioner Swenson questioned if ground contamination studies have been
conducted on the site. Mr. Larsen responded that studies have been conducted on Phase
I of the site, and they looked good. Mr. Larsen said he has not seen studies for Phase II.
Commissioner McClelland asked the proponents if they own the property. Mr.
Laurent said they have a purchase agreement with Mr. Lewis.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Larsen if a restaurant were constructed in one of
the office buildings, how many more spaces would be required. Mr. Larsen said it would
depend on the type of restaurant.
Commissioner Faust said she does not have a problem with the concept of an office
park, but cannot support a proposal that requires parking variances, especially in an area
where parking needs are not met for some tenants. Mr. Larsen agreed that POD -1 is a
good use of the land, and the concept before you this evening does not answer all the
questions that need to be addressed.
Commissioner Ingwlson pointed out parking demands can be met by either reducing
the square footage of the buildings, or eliminating the road. Continuing, Commissioner
Ingwalson said he believes POD -1 is an excellant use of the land, adding he is not sure
if this is the right development, but the proposed land use is appropriate.
Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval PID,
Planned Industrial District to POD -1, Planned Office District, subject to the elimination of
parking setback variances, and matching the floor area to available parking,
Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion.
8
A brief dicsussion ensued with the Commission considering if access to Eden Circle
should be eliminated for this development. Commissioner Ingwalson pointed out without
seeing firm traffic counts, it would be hard for he Commission to make a decision on if
access to Eden Circle should be allowed or not allowed. The discussion continued with
the Commission commenting they feel they cannot tie this proposal to the pending Kunz -
Lewis subdivision.
Ayes; Bergman, Faust, Swenson, McClelland, Runyan, Ingwalson, Workinger,
Johnson. Commissioner Byron abstained. Motion carried.
Commissioner Workinger asked Chairman Johnson if the action this evening was
centered on the proposed plans. Chairman Johnson said the action is only for the
rezoning, the developer understands our concerns regarding parking, and that their
concept is only preliminary, and final approval, with firm plans must meet our approval.
Mr. Larsen agreed, the proposed concept plans need to be finalized, and what the
Commission recommended to approve, is only the rezoning, directing the proponents to
address the parking issues and setback problems.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Community Facilities Element
Public Water System
Mr. Hoffman addressed the Commission informing them the City of Edina is required
by legislative action to produce a Public Water Supply -Emergency and Conservation Plan,
and to amend our Comprehensive Plan to include this element. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman
said the city has implemented measures to accomplish this.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Hoffman if the schools will be used as an
educational element. Mr. Hoffman said it is a good idea to educate children on water
conservation, and possibly implement a program on conservation similar to the one
children have had offered to them on recycling.
Commissioner Faust asked for another example of water conservation. Mr. Hoffman
responded the City presently enforces a water conservation sprinkling ban, that has been
operating successfully for a number of years. Mr. Hoffman added Edina residents continue
to use more water per household than residents in surrounding communities, and we have
not been successful in determining the reason.
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend adopting the Public Water Supply -
E
Emergency and Conservation Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan/Community
Facilities Element. Commissioner Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
An Ordinance to Amend the City Code to Reduce
the Number of Members of the Planning Commission and
Increase the Number of Members of the Edna Zoning Board
of Appeals
Mr. Larsen pointed out that the proposed amendment reducing the size of the
Planning Commission is a result of the joint meeting between the Commission and the City
Council.
Mr. Larsen added members of the Commission also serve on a rotating basis on the
Zoning Board of Appeals. If the number of members who serve on the Planning
Commission is reduced from 11 to nine as recommended, the Zoning Board of Appeals is
impacted, and two boards are short one member. In order to replace the two lost
members, the Zoning Board of Appeals needs to be increased in size from four to six
members, and an amendment to the code is required.
Commissioner Workinger moved to recommend adoption of an ordinance
amendment that reduces the number of members of the Planning Commission from 11 to
nine, and increases the Zoning Board from the present number of four, to six.
Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
.�. 11 _f g�
A
,
10