Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 05-31 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. Approval of April 26, 1978 Minutes. II. OLD BUSINESS Z-77-15 J. Hanson. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to R-2 and Two Family District. S-77-16 Woodbury Park Second Addition. Generally located east of France Avenue and south of W. 55th Street. S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Residential District - 3. Generally located north of Dewey Hill Road and north of W. W. Lewis Park and West of Cahill Road. III. NEW BUSINESS LD -78-3 Lot Division. Lot 10, except E. 42 feet, Richmond Hills 3rd Addition. Generally located south of MN & S Railroad, north of W. 56th Street and west of Code Avenue. LD -78-4 Lot Division. Lot 2, Block 4, McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located north of Indian Hills Road and west of Margaret's Lane. LD -78-5 Lot Division. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 6, Edina Interchange Center. Generally located east of Metro Blvd., west of Highway 100, south of W. 74th Street and north of Edina Industrial Blvd. Z-78-7 Braemar Assoc. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Residential District 3. Generally located on northwest corner of West 78th Street and Cahill Road. Council Commission Members to attend Council meetings on rotation Request basis. IV. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1978, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Wm. Lewis, Chairman, M. McDonald, R. Seaberg, D. Johnson, G. Johnson, H. McClelland, D. Runyan, J. Bentley, S. Hughes, and L. Fernelius. Staff Present: G. Hughes, Planning Director, H. Sand, Assistant Planner, F. Hoffman, City Engineer, and N. Rust, Secretary. I. Approval of the April 26, 1978, Minutes. 'Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the April 26, 1978, minutes as submitted. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-77-15 J. Hanson. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to R-2 Two Family and Dwelling District. S-77-16 Woodbury Park Second Addition. Generally located east of France Avenue and south of W. 55th Street. Mr. G. Hughes said the Commission should recall that this site was considered several months ago fora rezoning and explained the location of the property. He said when the site was last reviewed at the September 28, 1977, meeting, a five -lot subdivision was proposed. It was intended at that time that Lots 1 and 5 of the subdivision be zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District and Lots 2 through 4 be zoned R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. The Planning Com- mission had recommended approval of the proposal, and it was subsequently sent to the City Council where it received preliminary plat approval and first read- ing for the rezoning. Mr. G. Hughes recalled that on May 1, 1978, the City Council heard the request for final plat approval and second reading of the rezoning. At that time, there was a great deal of discussion from the residents of the area, particularly on the zoning of Lot 4. Thus, the City Council referred this issue back to the Community Development and Planning Commission for the purpose of commenting on the desirability of zoning Lot 4 R-2. At the September Planning Commission meeting, staff had recommended that Lcts 2 through 4 be zoned R-2 because of their proximity to France Avenue and the cemetery. He said staff would continue to recommend that the requested rezoning be approved and recom- mended the Commission reaffirm its recommendation of the September meeting. Mr. Frank Reese was present for the proponent and said their intent for Lot 4 was to construct a home on the site which would be similar in size to the homes in that neighborhood. What they ultimately ended up with is a residence 52 feet wide which at one level is 38 feet deep. It is two stories in height and of colonial design. In response to Mr. Fernelius, Mr. Reese said the proposed dwelling would meet the required setbacks and explained the configuration of the lot saying it would be similar to other lots in the area. Mrs. Janie Paulus, 3705 W. 55th Street, stated there was a detailed discussion on this issue at the last City Council meeting at which time it was said that Lot 4 could become either R-1 or R-2. She said the residents all indi- Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -2- Planning Commission Meeting Gated they preferred the R-1 zoning. The City Council had thus said at that time that because the residents were so insistent on the R-1 zoning that it should be reviewed again and subsequently referred it back to the Community Development and Planning Commission. She further said she was not against the design of the proposed dwelling but rather the zoning because she and the other residents are interested in single family homes where individuals will actually own the property and thus become interested in the neighborhood and problems of the community. Also, she did not feel the renters of the double bungalows would have children in the school system, which would also be a disadvantage to the community. She then presented two letters opposing the request for R-2 zoning from Mr. and Mrs. Steven Moll, 3709 W. 55th Street, and Barbara Henry, 3613 W. 55th Street. In response to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Reese said they are proposing R-2 zoning for Lots 2 through 4 because of economic considerations. He said he would have looked at the possibility of R-1 zoning with more moderation some months ago but that the costs have increased and R-2 zoning is now necessary. He noted that this was basically a rental project but that there was the pos- sibility of families purchasing the units. Mrs. Paulus commented on the cul-de-sac and its relationship to the development of R-2 lots, indicating it would be more expensive to Mr. Smaby to develop Mr. S. Hughes moved for approval of the subdivision and rezoning requests as proposed last September for the following reasons: 1. The requested R-1 rezoning for Lots 2, 3, and 4 are appropriate due to the site's proximity to France Avenue, a cemetery, and other R-2 developments. 2. Access to all lots from the proposed cul-de-sac street is desirable to avoid direct access to France Avenue. 3. Lot sizes are generally consistent with surrounding properties. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the low density residential character of surrounding properties. He wished to include the following conditions: 1. An acceptable developer's agreement. 2. Parkland dedication. 3. Two curb cuts at France Avenue be closed and a berm constructed along France Avenue, and 4. The vacation of the alley on the southern portion of the site. Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -3- Planning Commission Meeting 5-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast cor- ner of Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Mr. G. Hughes said the Commission should recall that this subject was discussed at their April 26, 1978, meeting, and at that time a single family lot subdivision was proposed for the site which would have 25 lots. One lot presently contains the existing residence. He said at that time, the Commission granted concept approval of the proposed subdivision with the conditions the proponents increase the right-of-way for the subdivision to 50 feet and try to eliminate two to three lots. The proponents have re- turned.with two alternatives to this proposal, both eliminating two lots from the subdivision. He said the first alternative has a 50 foot road right-of- way with the exception of the curve, where it narrows down to 36 feet. The second alternative is similar to the first; however, the right-of-way is 50 feet through the entire length of the road. iir. G. Hughes continued that from staff standpoint, they have the same concerns as expressed at the April meeting. He pointed out the proponents had returned with the plan revised in the direction the Com- mission gave them in regard to the reduction of lots and the 50 foot right-of- way. Mr. Richard Keenan, the attorney for the Folke Victorsen's, was present and indicated that both alternative plans were in compliance with the intent of the Commission at their April meeting. fie said both alternatives contained a reduction in the number of lots from 24 to 22, as directed by the Commission; however, there were two different ways in which the curve area was done, so as to make sure they came up with a final propo- sal for the Commission which would have the least impact on the environment. He continued they had talked with Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, and Mr. Bob Buresh, Public Safety, about the feasibility of a plan which would have a 36 foot right-of-way from Indian Hills Road up to the curb, basically to minimize the extent of the cut and the number of trees that would be taken down in that area. He said they are able to accomplish the 22 lots with either alternative. Mr. S. Hughes questioned the control of cutting trees. Mr. G. Hughes said there is an ordinance regulating tree removal and including the necessity of a tree -cutting permit. There is also a soil erosion ordi- nance, and one need not comply with both the tree removal and soil erosion ordinances. He said staff has asked the proponents to submit a soil erosion plan for the site which includes tree removal for part of the site. Proced- urally, it does not come before the Commission, but they did receive a copy of the plan for this request. In response to Mrs. McClelland, Mr. Ron Bastor said an in- crease in right-of-way from 36 feet to the 50 feet would not make that much difference to the number of trees taken; it would still be 15 percent. Mr. G. Hughes indicated that according to the prepared foot- prints, Lots 13 and 17 may have setback problems, without seeing the specific plans, due to the lot configuration. In response, Mr. Bastor said a dwelling Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting -4- could be placed on the lots without a variance, but they would have to be architecturally designed to fit. Mr. Fran Hoffman recalled the conversation at the lastCom- missionmeeting stating they would provide a 24foot surface one with no parking on either side which would go to 30 feet with parking has said this is acceptable. The basic proposal,, owev r,was for a 50 foot right-of-way with a 30 foot surface and parking on In response to Mr. Seaberg`s concern for control of lot con- struction, Mr. Keenan said Mr. Victorsen, as the developer, has a vested interest in the site and an inherent right to impose architectural restric- tions or limitations on what locations on the lots they may be built. Itlis his intent to have the overall project as envirIn terms of the actual development amannerconsistent tand construction fwithindividual Indian Hills area. would make sure they werrdone e of enforcing it. However, there is no legal way In response to Mr. Bentley, Mr. Keenan said Item No. 2 on the staff report would necessarily involve access across property presentlyn response owned by the church immediately north of the Victorsen property. w they are talking about is the egress from the existing Item No. 3, church residence to the road; a his has been rev ange location and iewed by Ethe nn problems are therefore determined the driveway resolved. He further said the proposal is for single family lots, andor he residents of the area has been many years the bulk of opposition from t that this is a single family area, and as far back as five or six years ago, the residents were voicing concerns to the Commission that it should be re- tained that way. Therefore, they feel this is the one proposal which is con- sistent with the overall nature of that.particular community. Mr. G. Hughes said in regard to the access problem and its resolution, he asked that a profile, cross sections, or any engineering drawings be brought in so staff could make that determination. Mr. Jack Clark, 6404 Cherokee Trail, was concerned about the hairpin turn off Gleason Road and parking on the street, particularly during the winter. He wondered if there was a possibility for access other than off Indian Hills Road. He also expressed concern about sroadremovalVictorsen, the abilian ty of City vehicles to maneuver on the proposed he the proponent, disagreed with the comments on trTasminffic �,r6420 IndianHills usually had no trouble in the winter. Mr.. Paul presently enjoy Road, was concerned that the silence and open area they p would be lost through the proposed development. Mr. Bastor said the Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road intersection is similar to every intersection in the city. Also, when the profile is brought in, it will be apparent there are a few level areas on the roadway, with a 50 foot flat on the Victorsen property to park on. The City Engineering Department has also reviewed the proposed profiles on the roads and approved them. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -5- Planning Commission Meeting Mrs. McClelland said the road proposed to be built, as it comes by Mr. Victorsen•s residence,is about the lot line where his far north- east lot line is about 910 feet and drops down to where he brings in Indian Hills Pass to 904 feet. The grade on his property is dropping from 930 to 910 feet on the contour. She did not understand how they will get a driveway in there for the lot in that very narrow little neck in the northeast corner. Mr. Keenan said it would be a steep driveway, but no differ- ent than what he has now. He said they are looking at a grade of about 15 percent and that there is a flat spot at either end of the driveway. It is an improvement over what the existing condition is. In response to Mr. Fernelius, Mr. Victorsen said there are no homes on Indian Hills Pass facing his property; however, there are five lots backing up to his property. Mr. S. T. Robb, 6405 Indian Hills Road, said the hill has been difficult to go up in the winter. Mr. Fernelius asked if the only way to solve the problem of the steep hill is not to develop it. Mr. Robb said he did not know, but felt a second hairpin turn should not be put in. In response to Mr. S. Hughes, Mr. G. Hughes said the property is zoned R-1 because the zoning of the property to PRD -5 was contingent on the platting of the property and the property was never actually platted. Mr. Lewis asked if it would be possible to cut off a portion of the curve. Mr. G. Hughes said this becomes a rather difficult turning movement given the grade of the hill and of the road. He said that perhaps from a grade standpoint, it would be more desirable, but from a turn stand- point, it would not be much of an improvement. He said other alternatives had been brought up at the last meeting, the first being to bring the roadway either from McCauley or Gleason to serve the top of the property, but this proved to be extremely steep. He feels it is very difficult to develop this property with single family homes without a road off Indian Hills Road to serve it. Perhaps with a greatly reduced number of lots in the subdivision, there may be another way to serve them without a roadway. Mr. W. J. Berg, 6409 Cherokee Trail, was concerned about the safety of the children in the area because of the dangerous road and intersec- tion. He was particularly concerned about the hairpin turn. Mr. Keenan recalled a Commission member had said this site was the most examined site in Edina. Mr. Victorsen now has a tremendous financial burden keeping the property in its present undeveloped state. He said the Engineers, Safety people, and experts have indicated this is a real- istic and workable plan. He said it is a sharp turn, but it will be controlled by a stop sign and will have a 50 foot flat space right at the bottom, so you are not turning into a hill. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -6- Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Ed Cohen, the attorney for Dr. Lewis, 6328 Gleason Road, made the point the neighbors appear to be concerned primarily for the welfare and safety of their children and said once the area was subdivided, they would no longer have any control over the property and how many trees were removed and what was built as long as the property owners complied with the building codes and city ordinances. The only control would be if Mr. victor - sen develops the lots himself. He said it was a free enterprise system and that you cannot always expect to make a profit. Public welfare should come before profit. Mr. Fernelius said the objections of the residents in the area could only be served by not developing the property, which is not feasible for the proponent, and felt the proposed plan as laid out is'the best possi- ble solution; thus, he moved for approval of the request with the 50 foot right-of-way and 30 foot surface. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. In response to Mr. Bentley's question about Lot 12, Mr. G. Hughes said questions were raised about Lot 12 at the last meeting and it was discussed as to whether it should remain as an outlot or a lot. He said from the procedural standpoint, it would not make that much difference. The same procedure would be required to further subdivide this tract of land regardless of its designation as a lot or outlot. Mr. B. Gunderson, 6405 Indian Pond Circle, also expressed - concern for safety of the residents in the area because of the proposed road. Mrs. McDonald asked if the Safety Commission, who had review- ed this road and indicated it did comply with City standards, could again look at the hairpin turn. Mr. G. Hughes said there are minor modifications which could occur such as an increase in the opening on Indian Hills Pass and the roadway could be shifted somewhat westerly. However, no matter what is done, the situation would not be changed tremendously as the property has to be served by Indian Hills Road. Dr. S. Levitt, 6413 Cherokee Trail, said when the subdivision was brought in two to three years ago, possible access from Gleason Road and McCauley Trail was discussed and wondered why'they were no longer alter- natives. He felt they were overlooking the major concern of the neighbors which was safety of children. Mr. Bob Perkins, 6909 Dakota Trail, also felt safety was a major concern and that it should be reviewed again. Mr. G. Hughes said past proposals were for apartments. One proposal was made three years ago for 140 units at the base of the hill, and the roadway did not have to be brought all the way up the hill but could be served easily from Gleason Road because there was no grade problem. He con- tinued that when the proposed plan was brought in two to three months ago, he asked the Engineering Department what the best way would be to get to the top of the hill, and they agreed that it would be very difficult to serve the property from Gleason Road or McCauley Trail. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -7- Planning Commission Meeting Following brief discussion regarding the proposed road, Mr. Fernelius amended his motion to include the understanding that the intersec- tion of the proposed road and Indian Hills Pass would be constructed in such a way that the visibility is good for traffic coming up Indian Hills Pass. Mr. G. Hughes said what concerns staff is the cross sec- tions and that they are having trouble determining how the grading plan and soil erosion plan were arrived at and also in determining what driveway grades would be necessary to serve the lots. He said they.are also concerned as to how locations of retaining walls were arrived at witlibA,,the use of cross sections as well as how access will be given to the existing home. In response to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. G. Hughes said they could not deny a building permit due to driveway grades once the lot is created. Mr.. Murphy felt the detrimental lot was Lot 13 and he would like to see the roadway moved north and the "half moan area" changed from one lot to two lots. He said if the Commission does approve this, he would ask that the five homes affected have an eight foot cedar fence constructed to hide the cars from the visibility of the property owners. Also he felt the log re- taining walls were not a good idea and felt the Commission should ask for a topographical rendering as to the placement of retaining walls.; Mrs. McDonald accepted the amendments to the motion as made - by Mr. Fernelius with her second and Mr. Fernelius recalled:'his motion. Mrs. McClelland said she still favored the idea of multiple type housing on the site because of the environmental factor. upon roll call, the following voted: Ayes: Mrs. McDonald, Mr. D. Johnson, Mr. Runyan, Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. Fernelius. Nays: Mrs. McClelland, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Seaberg, Mr, Bentley. Motion carried. Following further discussion, Mr. Fernelius withdrew his motion and Mr. G. Johnson moved the request be continued for 30 days until the June 28, 1978, meeting, to allow the proponent to meet with staff and review the questions brought up at this meeting. 'Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Victorsen said he had been meeting with the staff and that he did not see the benefit in extending his request another 30 days. He asked for a denial of the request so he could pursue further action. Mr. G. Johnson therefore withdrew his motion and Mr. S. Hughes moved to deny the request. Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. Mr. G. Hughes said he agreed with Mr. Victorsen in that an extension of 30 days would not accomplish very much and the request should either be approved with some conditions or denied. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting -g r Mrs. McDonald said she would vote "aye" to the stated .motion at the request of the proponent and not because she disagreed with the plan; therefore, the motion could be misleading. Mr. S. Hughes then withdrew his motion and subsequently moved to pass the request to the City Council with a tie vote. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion car- ried. Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Resi- dential District PRD -3. Generally located north of Dewey Hill Road and north of W. W. Lewis Park and west of Cahill Road. Mr. G. Hughes recalled that approximately two months ago, the Commission had reviewed this zoning request from R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District and showed a graphic of this site. He said it was an 11.75 acre tract of land and at that time two 60 unit condomin- ium buildings were proposed with access off of Cahill Road. The Commission had recommended preliminary approval of the rezoning but asked the proponents return with a proposal to dedicate parkland to the City on the western portion of the site in the amount stated in the Southwest Edina Land Use Plan and attempt to push the buildings as.far easterly as possible. The request then went to the City Council one month ago and was subsequently referred back to the Commission with the instructions the proponents decrease the number of units and dedicate the amount of parkland as designated in the Southwest Edina Plan by moving the buildings eastward. Mr. G. Hughes said the proponents had submitted a revised plan with the number of units reduced from 120 to 96. In addition, the buildings had been moved easterly so they were able to dedicate the parkland as called for in the Southwest Edina Plan. Mr. G. Hughes said staff, therefore, believed the proponents had prepared a plan which met the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood and the City Council for there was acceptable parkland dedication and density had been reduced by 20 percent, and recommended preliminary rezoning to PRD -3 with the following conditions: 1. Final zoning is contingent upon a final subdivision of the site. 2. The proposed security gate and private drive from Cahill Road must be reviewed thoroughly from the public safety and access standpoint prior to final approval. 3. Amundson Avenue right-of-way must be vacated over the subject property to facilitate the proposed plan. In response to Mr. D. Johnson, Mr. G. Hughes said the building to the west was moved approximately 170 feet. Two plans had been submitted, the first moving it approximately 100 feet and the second one an additional 70 feet to allow for the full parkland dedication. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -9- Planning Commission Meeting 4 Mr. G. Johnson said they had received a letter approximately one week earlier from Mr. Stanley Taube about the status of the adjacent property owned by Mr. Carl Hansen stating they were unable to purchase it at the present time, but that trading the property was a possibility of the future. He was wondering if they did obtain the property in the future if it would destroy the present plan. Mr. Schatzlien responded that the situation was that it was the intent of the Commission for them to attempt to acquire the property prior to final approval. If they do not acquire the parcel now, they have little interest in acquiring it at a later date. If it is acquired, however, it will probably be developed separately under separate ownership. Mr. G. Johnson felt if the parcel were developed separately, it would ruin the effect of the total development. Mr. Schatzlien agreed and said they have attempted to purchase the property but that the owner, Mr. Han- sen, has been unwilling to sell. He said the condominiums would be high quality ones. Mr. Ron Erickson said they planned to have the parking area broken up into three to four separate parking areas as opposed to one large parking area. They also plan to.have underground parking of 1.25 cars per unit, and their goal within the organization,is to achieve 1.5 on a marketing standpoint. He also made the comment that the way the buidlings are situated on the site with the recreation building between makes them appear as two smaller buidlings as opposed to two smaller buildings connected. He said he felt the buildings built into the hills would have been a better solution to the development. Also, the soil under one building was better on its first location than in the location on'the second plan. He further said the site would be built up to the top of the underground parking level and thus would not be visible to the public. In response to Mr. Fernelius, Mr. Erickson felt the security gate was the best solution in regulating traffic and main- taining security. He said their intent is to possibly have a breakaway arm at which a card may be inserted to open it. It would then be accessible to emer- gency vehicles. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the proposed rezoning from R-1 to PRD -3 with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Seaberg sec- onded. Mr. S. Winnick, 7117 Lanham Lane, said the proponents had met with the concerns of the City Council but that he was concerned with the land- scaping because the homes were looking down on the site, thus making it diffi- cult to screen. He also expressed concern about the noise pollution caused :from hardware, such as the air conditioners, and about the safety of the loca- tion of the ponds and suggested the pond area in front of the site be eliminated. Mr. Erickson said they would have adequate landscaping (i.e. 3"-4" stock) because they are concerned with appearance. As far as the hardware systems are, they will be in compliance with City requirements. Finally, in regard to the ponding areas, he said there is already a swamp area and therefore they are not actually creating anything new. Minutes of the 5-31-78 Community Development and -10- Planning Commission Meeting Following short discussion, the motion was recalled by Mr. Runyan and all voted aye. Motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: LD -78-3 Lot Division. Lot 10, except E. 42 feet, Richmond Hills 3rd Ad- dition. Generally located south of MN & S Railroad, north of W. 56th Street and west of Code Avenue. Mr. G. Hughes explained the property was located on West 56th Street, east of Hansen Road. He indicated there were two residences side by side which are requesting the division of a narrow 36 foot wide pareel of property which is tax forfeit and lies between them. They will add each half to the respective lots and no new buildable lot will be created. Mr. G. Hughes said staff recommended approval of the proposed lot division. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval of the request. Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. LD -78-4 Lot Division. Lot 2, Block 4, McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located north of Indian Hills Road and west of Margar- et's Lane. Mr. G. Hughes explained the lot in question contains an exist- ing double bungalow. He said the proponent is requesting a party wall division of the dwelling, an action which has occurred frequently in the past. Each unit currently has individual sewer and water connections. He said staff re- commended approval of the proposed lot division. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the request. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. LD -78-5 Lot Division. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 6, Edina Interchange Center. Generally located east of Metro Boulevard, west of Highway 100, south of W. 74th Street and north of Edina Industrial Boulevard. Mr. G. Hughes explained the property presently exists as three separate lots and that the proponent is requesting permission to decrease the number of lots from three to two by combining them. He said the purpose of this request is that there is an office proposed for one tract of land and it will secure the financing for the construction. Mr. G. Hughes further said the property owner has agreed to come back after securing the finances for the pro- posed office building with a plat for the property clarifying the legal descrip- tion. There would be no required parkland dedication as the density was being reduced on the site. Mr. G. Hughes said staff.recommended approval of the requested lot division. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the request. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. . . . Minutes of the 5=31-78 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting -11- Z-78-7 Braemar Assoc. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Residen- tial District 3. Generally located on the northwest corner of West 78th Street and Cahill Road. Mr. G. Hughes showed the location of the property in question and said the proponent is requesting a rezoning from R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District to allow 50 townhouse units on the site. He further said this plan was not in accordance with the den- sity reduction plan adopted by the City Council on August 4, 1975, which allows for a maximum of 38 units rather than the requested 50 units. Mr. G. Hughes said he felt the site had some extremely unique qualities and is concerned that this plan as proposed does not address itself to the site but rather treats it in some respects as a level piece of property with no woodlands. It does, however, utilize a portion of the site as a pond- ing area. He said access would be by way of two access roads off Cahill Road, and the proponents indicated that after Delaney Boulevard was constructed, access could also be gained from the northwest corner of the site. Mr. G. Hughes felt the site was a good one for development but that the proponent should revise his present plan. He felt that due to the townhouse nature, there would be a great deal of hard surface, thus the number of units should be reduced to alleviate the congestion of the plan. Mr. Jack Barron, the developer, said it was a difficult piece of property to develop. He said when townhouses are developed, you use a great deal of black top and -that eight units per acre was not excessive. Mr. Runyan agreed with staff's opinion on a reduction of units but felt it will not totally reduce the intensity of the site and thus re- quire a lot of replanting. In response to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Barron said the reason he chose townhouses for the site is because he is a single family home builder and this type of construction best resembles his style. Following short discussion, Mr. Barron indicated he was interested in obtaining a direction to go with his plan, and Mr. Runyan suggested he meet with staff and revise the present plan to meet with the Commission's and staff's expectations. Mr. S. Hughes then moved to continue the request to the June 28, 1978, meeting to allow the proponent to meet with staff. Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Council Request: Commission Members to attend Council meetings on rota- tion basis. In response to the Council's request to send one member of the Commission to each Council meeting, the Commission generally agreed to allow Mr. G. Hughes to form a rotation plan which they would follow. IV. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Nancy J. Rust, Secretary