Loading...
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