The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978 03-01 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA Edina Communitv Development and Planning Commission Wednesday. March 1, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Approval of February 1, 1978 Commission Minutes II. OLD BUSINESS 5-78-4 Normandale-Carr Replat. Generally located north of West 66th Street, east of Sherwood Avenue and west of West Shore Drive. III. NEW BUSINESS Z-78-2 F. Cardarelle. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple and District. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue, north S-78-5 of the Crosstown, west of Lincoln Drive. Crosstown Hills. Five lots Z-78-3 Brian Gensmer. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. 6813 Indian Hills Road. McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located on southeast corner of County Road 18 and Indian Hills Road. IV. Adjournment. L0CATI0IV MC CAULEY tR�IL WES1 _ r tcROSSViEWt7THERAN CTiURCH w C 111 NA Ls Pp CIRCLE R s �N wi w zoning Brian Gensmer REQUEST NUMBER: Z-78-3 LOCATION: 6813 Indian Hills Road. SE corner County Rd. 18 and Indian Hills Rd. REQUEST: R-1 to R-2 villme manning sMrme village of edins PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 Z-78-3 Brian Gensmer. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. 6813 Indian Hills Road. McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located on southeast corner of County Road 18 and Indian Hills Road. Refer to: Attached graphic The Commission will recall that this proposed rezoning from R-1 to R-2 was considered at the March 1, 1978 meeting. At that time, the Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning provided that the proponent enter into an agreement which would specify that one unit of a double bungalow constructed on the site must face Indian Hills Road and one unit must face McCauley Trail. It was felt that a double bungalow constructed in this manner would be more compatible with single family dwellings located easterly of the subject property. At the March 1, 1978, meeting, the proponent agreed to enter into such an agreement. On March 20, 1978, the City Council considered the requested rezoning. At that time, the proponent indicated he was no longer in favor of the proposed agreement and requested that the Council approve the rezoning with no contingencies. The Council thereupon referred the requested rezoning back to the Commission and instructed the proponent to discuss the requirement for the agreement with the Commission. The Council indicated that they do not disagree with the Commission's recommendation. However, in that the proponent now objects to the restrictive agreement for the lot, the Council requested that the Commission again review the matter. GH:ks 3/21/78 L07 !1P I? _ 21 ' 1 O• p `f:o' s5 s.�;ef/_ -R ,Cj�Aj r/oma f -i o � 9 le _ t _ `• 9� GE way .'i; yti, �sr 5'' yr �•5: =yam y M ' las i n / 4j•Q1 h �� • a y . V 2 0 _ r . ro c„51_3T a +�` "p `S "s \ �� `•%+! �� CSA .; :� F o y •� � wG v• fug ot+♦l . j, o �v, y,, 3 ': s �Q • _r, ..• � :Ji56 6�64 •�i hlC:CAULE 'Js �;F 3 +•[. ��r ��• 4' i; j1 IA-11j7l ,IV tf +; 11• a1 z LT of GHr9 iu 4TH 13J36 .94 SF—j�02E n { 41 r �C 58S'Jj' y � ' :.� o _ 1'v' .� � CqG E` c 6 9a\� •7jr ••S,i��p.. '" 19.23 ^. , .. \v v c 4pA, h ^; ,� r,. �s �� ` 5 87.19 K' N� �s�. S,x �., 9 - — w `d 170. �� A mo gpO7 ,:1'� • , l 15 44 I -7 s,3 Y l4'.b s\n J 10 ' -13 PV�.E� .' %A yo� MCCAULEf j/HE TS 3RD �> G PDO 0` � o�4.DQ1T10N 40 j et,n lij TWO pia W 31'CC: ILE' c ° J.107 ur �' % ONE S.. M as l ..YS_.:! oc S � i e� Oj ,�� 1:,1'�{i •'oj� r ,",•' �� '°jv 1 s �2J ry 5 ,V / / ` •v 'y •�/ o� 91 • ) is `' C1' 1'LE 6 of✓ ' �1�� j� ^�� 1 �bZ•P9 ~`(V'�� / 4Q �' ! Lb F 2 '�, iT 5 tid / •. Yr3 1 �� v �� i 2 ` ��: '�.� • a )Zb Ilk lox. , � �_,•�, ♦.N 4' � 4 y� ♦:.,,�;�� dJ `y 1" �..�i^fa �% s L� ,� ` S,s/r 0 spy aec'., �Q N s s 's�.s c C' /r �'�•� c,� !�� ` J Port of ' C� 66 vyrft ..� �' t5t.lh ` 4_► `, }�� . 1 Lot 16 _1. gra �' °1'.IcE ♦ Y M (�\ %�/ �• ...\ ' ,�tiLe• AUS. SUbd.. ..o 'v c n J ♦ ,y \Q,S'''_ �i .;? �'+' 'V Q d No.. 196 •uX c �, a'` (1 Part of �r Lot 8 - - tii3• �' " ? i„ �'yi wrz ( •(' ':s S °.n w v °a j `1 O qy�'' 7' g �`^-, _145.11, C� .L - `� 1 \ � .• j ..90 fe "Y%:•r�.r�� `s'""--T-IT��':7�J,c I-. •k ''o \�j � " ,� ;2 N �'S .'•+� v.\„G :. g�.� �_y.. ��-- �. 1 iV. j p '• ri)7`41.1i't \��•t1Y'-[ .-: � ` _ ;i�-�• 8{(� •„'`• f•�.` �� \�� . b `� -•�5?lei y... ��~ "S TAX - ; lAiC MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Mary McDonald, Vice Chairman, David Runyan, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Len Fernelius and Dick Seaberg Members Absent: William Lewis, Samuel Hughes, James Bentley Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Planning Director, Harold Sand, Assistant Planner and Acting Secretary I. Approval of the February 1, 1978 Minutes Mr. David Runyan moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. II. OLD BUSINESS 5-78-4 Normandale Carr Replat. Generally located north of W. 66th Street, east of Sherwood Avenue and west of West Shore Drive. Mr. Gordon Hughes presented the property location and displayed the preliminary plat. The proposed subdivision would create three additional R-1 Single Family Lots, one facing W. 66th Street, one facing Parnell Avenue and one facing Ryan Avenue. Mr. Hughes explained that the current request was similar in design to the Normandale Bessesen Replat, file no. S-73-6. The Bessesen Replat was considered by the Planning Commission May 2, 1973. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the plat provided the new lots were enlarged to be compatible with the neighborhood. A revised plat was not prepared and the matter was not pursued by the owner at that time. Mr. Hughes said the staff would recommend approval of the current proposal provided the new lot lines were adjusted in a similar manner as requested by the Planning Commission in 1973. The west line of proposed Lot 4 should be moved 10 feet west and the south line of proposed Lot 1 should be moved 10 feet southerly. The increased lot size would reduce the potential need for variances in the future. He recommended that approval of the revised plat be contingent upon the payment of parkland dedication fees, a utility easement over Lot 3 and a drainage easement on Lot 4. Mr. Conrad Carr introduced himself as an attorney and brother of the proponent in case. He indicated that they would not object to the requested lot line adjustment on Lot 1, however, they would prefer to not adjust the lot line on Lot 4. Mr. Gordon Johnson and Mr. Dick Seaberg requested clarification on the need to adjust the line on Lot 4. Mr. Hughes explained that the lot size was slightly smaller than the.surrounding lots and the terrain was restricting the potential building site to the west side of the lot. The enlargement of the lot would increase the flexibility and reduce the need for variances on the site. Planning Commission Minutes Page Two March 1, 1978 Mr. Irving Carr stated that he has sold the Lot 4 on a contract for deed subject.,to the approval of the plat, however, he does not believe there are any specific building plans yet. After further discussion, Mr. Runyan moved that the preliminary plat be approved with the following conditions: 1. the south 'Line of Lot 1 be moved 10 feet southerly. 2. the payment of parkland dedication fees as specified in the parkland dedication report. 3. the provision of a utility easement on Lot 3. 4. the provision of a drainage easement on Lot 4. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. NEW BUSINESS Z-78-2 ;:`,';Crosstown Hills. Frank Cardarelle. Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 and and replatting to five lots. -"`Generally located south of Vernon Avenue, S-78-5 north of the Crosstown Highway and east of Lincoln Drive. Mr._ Gordon Hughes presented.a location map and preliminary plat explaining the topography, vegetation and existing structures on the site. The proposed rezoning was from R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Two Family District. Mr. Hughes further explained that proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 would gain access from Vernon Avenue. Lots 1, 2, Block 2 would gain access from a new roadway dedicated on the plat that is designed to provide access to the property on the east. The tennis court on Lot 2, Block 1 was intended to be shared by Lots 1, 2 and 3. The existing dwelling on Lot 3, Block 1 is proposed to be remodeled. Mr. Hughes said the proposed zoning was consistent with the Western Edina land use plan and the staff would recommend approval of the zoning contingent upon the platting of the property. He indicated that the staff did have reservations about the proposed platting and the location of the street. He noted that the new street intersected at a point on Vernon Avenue where there is a very sharp curve. He also indicated the proposed alignment does not provide a temporary cul-de-sac and the relationship to the topography is. unclear. He presented two alternatives prepared by the staff that illustrated optional road patterns and allowed the new dwellings to orient to the new roadway and maintain a better relationship to the hill. He recommended that the proposed subdivision be continued until March 29 to allow additional time to resolve these issues and discuss the alternatives with the proponent and the neighborhood. Mr. Fernelius asked what the traffic volume on Vernon Avenue was. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, estimated the average daily traffic volume to be approximately 2000 vehicles. Mr. Hughes said there is a considerable amount of vacant property in the neighborhood. Mr. Seaberg said we can anticipate more traffic as time goes on. r Planning Commission Minutes Page Three March 1, 1978 Mr. Frank Cardarelle explained that the proposed road alignment was chosen because of the topography, vegetation and location of existing structures. He indicated the three southerly lots would gain access from the new road and the two northerly lots would gain access from a common driveway. Mr Bob Schiefelbein, 6115 Arctic Way, appeared representing the Arctic Way Home Owners Association. He asked that the matter be restudied with serious consideration to the traffic concerns that have been stated. The curve in the roadway at the proposed intersection is very sharp and a large number of curb cuts at that location would be dangerous. He said that the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a part of Krah1 Hill due to the topography and vegetation. The proposed roadway appears to be necessary to serve the property south of Krahl Hill, however, this roadway should end in a cul-de-sac and not be connected to Gleason Road. Mr. Schiefelbein indicated that the property was presumably purchased with the R-1 zoning and he was not aware of any hardship or change in the circumstances that indicates the rezoning should be approved. Mr. Hughes reviewed the zoning in the area and Mr. Runyan indicated :the case for R-2 zoning was good. The property was isolated with the hill on one side and multi -family residences on the other side. Mr. Cardarelle said that it would be desirable to proceed with the zoning at this time and that he will gladly talk to Mr. Hanson about the realignment of the roadway. We will come back next month with a satisfactory solution to the roadway. Mr. Runyan moved approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-2 and to continue the proposed plat until the April meeting. Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion. Mrs. McDonald asked for a vote on the motion All voted Aye.. Motion Carried. Z-78-3 Brian Gensmer. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. 6813 Indian Hills Road. McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located on southeast corner of County Rd. 18 and Indian Hills Road. Mr. Hughes displayed the site location and said that the lot under consideration was originally zoned R-2 along with adjacent lots when the property was platted 10 years ago. Approximately one year ago, the property was rezoned from.R-2 to R--1 to allow the construction of a single family dwelling. The dwelling was not constructed and the Gensmer's recently acquired the property and are requesting to rezone the lot to R-2, in conformance with the Western Edina Plan. There have been double bungalows constructed both north and south of the subject lot. The staff would recommend approval of the request because it satisfies the criteria for R-2 zoning. Mrs. McDonald indicated the Commission all received copies of a petition from the neighborhood and a communication from Dr. Gifford, 6809 Indian Hills Road, the adjacent homeowner and they have objected to the proposed rezoning. Dr. Gifford said they are concerned about the number of doubles in the area and the resultant congestion in the neighborhood. The proposed double bungalow would have both units facing Indian Hills Road and the driveway.exiting onto Indian frills Road. This would have a less than pleasing appearance similar to the Planning Commission Minutes Page Four March 1, 1978 other double bungalows on McCauley Trail. The neighbors like the appearance of the double bungalow north of the street which has one dwelling unit facing Margaret's Lane and the other dwelling unit facing Indian Hills Road. Dr. Gifford said that he believes that the property was purchased by the Gensmer's as an R-1 lot and it was not a contingency purchase and therefore, the neighbors would oppose the rezoning to R-2. Mr. Scott Gensmer was present and stated that they have no disagreement about the direction the new double bungalow faces. It does not make much difference if the building faces Indian Hills Road or McCauley Trail or one dwelling facing each street. Mr. G. Johnson asked if it would be possible to control the location of the driveways through the rezoning action. Mr. G. Hughes said that it would be difficult, but perhaps a deed restriction could be prepared. He said from a traffic standpoint the staff would prefer that only one driveway enter McCauley Trail. Mr. G. Johnson said that it would be the only lot on Indian Hills Road that had two driveways. It is not really an R-1 lot because of the highway. Dr. Gifford indicated they would find an R-2 zoning with'a requirement to exit one driveway on each road would be an acceptable compromise. Mr. Gensmer stated that they would agree to enter into an agreement with the City restricting the driveway locations. They purchased the property without any contingencies on the purchase agreement because it was zoned R-2 previously. They have plans for both a single family and a double family dwelling on the site, but they wanted the double because it was between two other doubles. Mr. Runyan said he has driven the area and feels that it makes sense to rezone the lot to R-2 because of the existing doubles and the highway. The split driveways would be a good approach. Mr. Fernelius moved that the rezoning from R-1 to R-2 be approved with the condition that the owner enter into a binding agreement prior to final zoning approval that will limit the lot to have one driveway from one dwelling entering each street. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. OTHER BUSINESS Planned Residential District Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Hughes said he has prepared a memorandum on the density adjustment formula that is a part of the three land use plans in the City. The present formula starts at the maximum density and subtracts units per acre to a maximum 50% reduction. The reduction is based on the characteristics of the site. The staff is currently working on a revised formula that starts with a 50% density reduction and works upwards with credits for preserving site characteristics and providing high quality development. The new approach would eliminate the current penalties that apply equally to high quality and low quality projects. The new proposal will credit high quality developments with additional density. Planning Commission Minutes Page.Five March 1, 1978 Mr. Fernelius said the concept should be considered an improvement by the public. Mr. Hughes requested the Commission transmit the concept to the City Council to allow the public hearing process to begin. Mr. Seaberg said the proposal may or may not be a benefit to the public, but it will be a benefit to the developer. Mr. Hughes said we are trying to 'improve the quality of development .but we do.not want to set .up a system that allows all of the projects to achieve the maximum density otherwise the purpose of the density adjustment isn't satisfied. The staff will prepare hypothetical developments on various sites to test the new formula and compare it to existing development. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the proposed plan amendments to the South, Southwest and Western Edina Plans be transmitted to the Council for initiation of the hearing process. 'Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. Adjournment. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion.. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Respectfully ssubm�itted, Harold Sand, Secretary Pro Tem