Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 07-07 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINU2'ES OF 111E REGULAR MEETING OF 17HE EDINA PLANNING COMMISS1014 HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1971 EDINA VILLAGE HALL Members Present: Mr, W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Mrd S, P. Hughes, Mr, C. E. Johnson, Mr. D. T. Runyan, and Mr. G. V, Johnson,; Staff Present; Greg Luce and Lynnae Nye„ I,, Approval of the May 5, 1971. and June 2_,_ 1971,Planning Commission Minutes, Mr. Hughes moved that the Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1971, and June 2, 1971, be approved as submitted„ Mr, C. Johnson seconded the motion, All Voted Aye, Motion Carried„ IIo LOT DIVISIONS; LD -71-10 Odd E,: Moe. 5706 _Blake Road Part of Tract B R.L�S No. 1286, LD -71-11 Paul Larson, 5708 Blake RoadsLot l� d-I31ock 1� Parkwood Knolls 13th Addition;, --- Mr, Luce stated that both double bungalows involved have been divided for homestead purposes, and noted that the request is to divide both properties in such a manner as to provide a larger yard for both Mr, Moe and Mr. Larson. lie stated that the division is complicac,d, and added that the staff would recommend approval. Mr. C. Johnson moved that the realignment of the lots be approved, and Mr. Hughes seconded the motion„ All Voted Aye, Motion Carried, III. REZONINGSm Z-71-8 Carl M. Hansen, Southeast corner of Malibu Drive and Telemark. Trail, Lot 1, Block 49 Parkwood Knolls 15th Addition, Mr, Luce stated that the R-2 areas as proposed in the Western Edina Plan do not include the lot in question, located on the southeast corner of Telemark Trail and Malibu Drive, but are according to the existing zoning, Ile stated that R-2 zoning exists to the north and west, and R-1 zoning abuts the property to the east and south. He added that minor commitments have been made to several people that double bungalow zoning will. not encroach further to the south, as indicated by the Western Edina Plan which has been recently approved, Mr, Luce stated that the staff would recommend denial of the rezoning request. Mr, Harvey Hansen stated that the property owner to the east and the nearest person to the north (located on Parkwood Road) have no objections to the proposed zoning change, and noted that a tree line exists along the southern boundary of the property. Ile stated that there are 10 double bungalows on the west side of Malibu Drive and 7 bungalows along the east side of the street, He indicated that the proposed dwelling will front on Telemark Trail and the rear yard and tree line will face the single family horYes to be constructed to the south, all of which will front on Malibu Drive,. The Planning Commission generally agreed that although they do not oppose the rezoning request, the owner of the properties to the south should be contacted. They also expressed concern that said owner might also request double bungalow Ru2 zoning, as the lots are more than adequate in size„ Edina Planning Commission m-2- July 7, 1971 Mr., Hughes moved that the request be continued to the August 4, 1971, Planning Commission agenda in order that the property owner to the south can be contacted for his opinion regarding the request. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-71-9 G.C.G, Ccmpany. 6.101 County Road -.18._ R-1 to PRD -4o Mr. Luce stated that the Western Edina Plan calls for multiple dwellings of 5 to 12 units per acre in this area. He stated that G.G.C. Company is request- ing direction from the Planning Commission regarding their presentation and proposal. Mr. Charles Cox, a principal of the G.G.C. Company, stated that the company has acquired about 15 1/2 acres at the northwest corner of County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway. He stated that the exact proposed density will depend upon the studies that have not as yet been completed, however, they are proposing two underground parking spaces per unit and the preservation of the natural site amenities. Mr„ Paul Novack, of Novack and Carlson, landscape architects from Chicago, described the existing site conditions,, the proposed general configuration of the site, and the gradients. Ile stated that all parking will be in a two-tier underground parking area, with the exception of a small amount of visitor parking, thus allowing area for a recreational facility inlrolving a health spa, tennis courts, a pool., etc. He indicated that the total open space planned, exclusive of buildings, is 80®4`G. In reply to Mr. Runyan, Mr" Novack stated that no breakdown of the complete number of units is available, but in this plan with all of the parking underground, the site could accommodate a density of about 20 units per acre. In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Cox stated that the G,C,,,C. Company was aware of the density (5 to 12 units per acre) proposed in the Western Edina Plan when they purchased the property. He stated that a definitive proposal will be presented in August that will include the mix of one-, two--, and three-bedroom units per building. Mr., Melvin Gittleman, a principal of the G.G.C. Company, stated that at the August meeting, the G,,GoC„ Company will propose the development of a three story frame building above a 1 1/2 story below -grade masonry garage (two .levels garage with the three story apartment building above). He admitted that the proposed density will be higher than that proposed in the Western Edina Plan. In reply to Mr. Co Johnson, Mr. Gittleman stated that the only access will be from County Road 180 Following further discussion, the Planning Commission generally agreed that the request be continued to the August 4, 1971, Planning Commission agenda for further consideration at that time, Z-71-6 Force R. Victorsen.,_ West of Gleason Road and south of the Crosstown Hi&hwLaXo 3-1 tpk'IDA2. -- -_ Mr. Victorsen stated that on June 29, 1971, a meeting was held at the Harry A. Murphy house. He stated that the neighbors objections were expressed as Edina Planning Commission -3- July 7, 1971 follows: 1. no plan should include a road between the Murphy and the Lewis houses, regardless of the development type, thus the entire northwest boundary of the property could not be developed because no other access can be provided; 2. the 65 foot buffer between the proposed townhouses and the existing single family homes is not sufficient and the overall density should be modified, even though the townhouses will be properly screened and the townhouse density, which occupies twos -thirds of the site area, is only about 2 1/2 units per acre; 3, the majority of units should be constructed on the north and east slopes and not on the areas adjacent to their properties; Mr. Victorsen stated that he has no offers to buy the property, and added that the Village has no plans to retain the property for its historic or aesthetic value, Mr,, Ifictorsen noted that if a road is not constructed between the: Murphy and 'Lewis homes, development on the west slope could not occur until the church property is developed; he added that his present think- ing is to wait until that time and then develop the west slope in a similar rianner, with access from that point® In reply to Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. Victorsen stated that 10 townhouses are planned for the southwest corner of the property near the Murphy house Dr. Christgau of 6500 Indian Hills Road pointed out that the Western Edina Man calls for a maximum density ori the 20 acre site of 80 units, however, Mr. Victorsen°s plan calls for over 100 units Mr. Keith. Waters of Brauer and Associates requested that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting on July 21, 1971, to consider the request further and perhaps reach some decision, The Planning Commission generally agreed that the developer and residents could not reach an agreement by that time .and that no decision would be made until a compromise proposal is presented, as they requested at the June meeting. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission requested that a report from Brauer and Associates and the "people"s plannerRO, Carl Dale, be presented for their consideration at an informal meeting July 21, 1971, a decision to be post- poned until the regular August meeting, No further action taken, 2-71-10 Gary R. Johnsen, 5100 Oxford Avenue. R-1 to 11-2o Mr. Luce stated that the request is to rezone Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, located at the end of Oxford Avenue on the west side of the street, from R-1 to R-2; the proposal also includes the vacation of a portion of West 52nd Street and Oxford Avenue, the creation of a cul-de-sac at the end of Oxford Avenue, and the purchase of part of Lots 13, 14, and 15, owned by the Village of Edina„ He noted that double bungalows exist in the area to the east- and that Lots 13, 14, and 15, located on the east side of Oxford Avenue, have recently been rezoned to R-2; an apartment development is located directly to the south. He pointed out that a steep bluff exists along the western boundary of the ilots to be rezoned, which would make development difficult. Mr,, Gary Johnson stated that a petition has been submitted to the Council for the vacation of a portion of Oxford Avenue and West 52nd Street,, He explained that the proposal, including the vacated streets, the village :lots, the lots on the east side of the street previously zoned. R-2, and the remaining lots on the Edina Planning Commission -4- July 7, 1971 west side of the street, would involve a replat to combine the four portions to create four pie -shaped lots around the cul-de-sac, Ile added that the sites would require filling, compaction, etc,, but he feels the proposal is feasible. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission generally agreed that although they would have no objection to the concept, they would request considera- tion of plans indicating what will be built on the site and how. No action taker. Z-71-11 Prestiee DevelopmentCor oration.5537-5605_County Road 18, R-1 to Planned Industrial District, Mr. Luce stated that the property in question is generally located east of County Road 18, west of Nine Mile Creel;, and north of the Rauenhorst warehouses, and is included in the Western Edina Plan, He noted that the request is to rezone the property from R-1 to PID, in accordance with the Plan, He stated that the proponents have submitted the required development schedules and proposed site layouts, however, the staff does not concur that the plans present the most reasonable building shape, loading dock situation., etc, Ile stated that the site layout and alignment of Lincoln Drive will be resolved prior to approval of the Overall Development Plans and following; approval of the rezoning. In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Luce indicated that the building will be 1,'4 office and 3/4 ware- house area, Mr. Hughes moved that the rezoning request be approved, subject to the fulfillment of the Planned Industrial District ordinance requirements" Mr© C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried„ Z-70-14 Windwood Auer exatti� Po _A. r, _C gdar�lle,inc, R-1 to PRD -3o Mr,, Luce reviewed the site location in relation to the Southwest Edina Plano Ile stated that the developers concept involves density credit for the three one -acre single family lots west of the Dewey Hill Road extension and indicated that the staff is not in favor of the three lots, as they were not included in the South- west Edina Plan; He added the staff is opposed to the transfer of credit to the three lots, or the easement along the rear of the lots, as it is in violation of the purpose of the Planned Residential District ordinance and the Southwest Edina Plano He noted that the staff would recommend the loss of this credit be incorp(j- P:kt'_­d if concept approval is granted, or that credit be permitted on the rear two-thirds of the lots, provided the proposed easement is dedicated. Ile noted that credit for a portion of Cahill Read cannot be granted, as this area was previously dedicated. In reply to Mr, Hughes, Mr,, Luca clarified that: an easement will be provided across the rear of the three :tingle family lots for ponding areas, ho*aever, there is a great deal of difference between an easement and dedication as far as permitted uses of the land, setbacks, etc. Mr. Luce stated that the staff would recommend denial of the concept as presented previously, unless it is amended to follow the concept as set forth in the Southwest Edina Plant and to conform with the staff's recommendations in the July 7, 1971, staff report. Mr. Luce clarified that assuming the three single family lots must exist in that: location, density credit should not be allowed for the three lots, as they are single family 'domes and are not being incorporated into the Planned Residential District. The Planning Commission agreed. Mr. Luce Edina Planning Commission --5- Ju..ly 7, 1137 called attention to a note added at the end of the July 7 staff report at the request of the Village Manager which states, Q°If the rear .woa-thirds of the single family lots are dedicated rather than easements provided, it would be necessary and reasonable to allow density for these two acres.91 Mr. Bill Rose stated that a land area of 1.03 acres will be utilized for the lots; the remainder of the propert_a w::.11 be given by permanent easement., Mx:. Lewis responded that density credit could not be granted for an easement on land that the developers do not own or control© The Planning Commission agreed, In reply to Mr, Poppler, Mr. Luce stated that the Smiseks° could not request 12 units per acre zoning on the three lots because the properties are located on the west side of the road and would thus not be in conformance with the Southwest Edina Plan. Mr. Rose requested that density be granted for the rear two-thirds of the three lots (two acres total), provided the area was given in the form of a deed to the Village, rather than an easement,, He stated that the dedication line would follow the original easement line as presented in the Smiselc Addition plat. He noted that the three lots would remain for the 3miseks;, Mr, C. Johnson moved that the request be continued until the developer's have purchased the area to be dedicated, Following further discussion, however, Mr. C. Johnson moved that concept approval be grantee?, subject to the five contingencies listed in the July 7, 1.971, staff report as follows: to No credit for the three acres of s .ng e family nor half of the road abutting it. 2. No credit for Cahill Road;, 3. The removal of the northwest wing of the western building and the southeast wing of the southern building,, thus preserving the bear: of the natural vegetation, 4� Any major remodification of this plan will be subject to concept approval at the Planning Commission and Council stages, 5. Sewer and water and other easement: must be shown for the three single family lots Also, if the developers purchase the rear two acres of the three single family lots for ponding ,area and dedicate that area to the Village, concept approval must again be granted by the Planning Coruaiss.ion at a future date, Mr. Hughes seconded the motion All Voted Aye. Motion Carried„ Z-70-19 Braemar Oaks ®lson--Hansen 7200 Cahill Road. R-1 to PRD -3, Mr. Luce stated that the proposed development is in accordance with the Southwest Edina Plan, tie indicated that the request is for approximately 11 UY.Iits per acre, with the required surface parking and 1 1/2 underground parking stalls per unit. Ile stated that although two additional surface Parking spaces have been provided, the staff would request that :five of the total. p«rking spaces be eliminated in order to preserve the trees on the site, Hr:, Luce clarified that the developer would thus be deficient three surface spaces, however, tine three spaces will be incorporated into the concept and could be added if necesst.ry at a later date, Mr. Harvey Hansen stated that with 9 1/2 acres at 12 units per acre, they could have 114 units, however„ they are requesting only 108 units with 1 1/2 Edina. Planning; Commission _h_ July 7, 1971 underground parking spaces, as required in the ordinance, Ile noted that they are attempting; to retain the northeast corner of the site for a future ponding area; the southwest corner is to be used for a pool„ He stated that the building wilt. be built around the base of the hill in order to preserve the large trees located on the top of the hill and near the road. Mr; Hansen stated that the building will include b three= -bedroom units (1,.388 square feet, to be located on the outside corners of the building), 18 one -bedroom units (750 square feet), and 84 two-bedroom units (1,054 square feet), IIe stated that the building will be built basically out of cedar and stucco, with brick near the garage entrances, Following further discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved that concept approval be granted, with the provision noted by Mr. Luce regarding the temporary elimination of parking; spaces to preserve two large trees and a greater setback from Amundson Road, and Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried IV, OTHER BUSINESS: 1, Ordinance Amendment to Parkin_Reguirements for_Apartment the Structures in the R-3 R 4 and sR­ 5 Multi,le -Residence Districts, Mr, Luce reviewed the action taken by the Planning Commission and Council through June regarding the multiple district ordinance amendment. He recalled the proposed apartment study to be done by the Planning Department staff, and reviewed generally the sample questions to be asked,. He noted that the study will clarify the number of spaces per unit, the age, income, etc, of the residents, the number of children, etc, Mr. Luce stated that the staff would recommend further consideration of the amendment be postponed indefinitely, pending the completion of the proposed apartment ztudy- The Planning Commission agreed. No action taken. L Instruct Staff to Request of B pornin ton Planning.DeAartment the richt to review Plans Between I-494 and the South Villa&e Limits, � --- ----- �� - Mr, G. Johnson moved that the Village Planner be instructed to request the right to review any Bloomington plans generally affecting the area between I-494 and the south Village limits, Mr. C,, Johnson seconded the motion, All Voted Aye, Motion Carried, Respectfully submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Work Session — Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, July 21, 1971 Edina Village Hall 1, Southeast Edina Plan area including several Dayton®s proposals. 2. Folke Victorsen and the residents (a review of several proposals). 3. Apartment survey. 4® Park Dedication or Fees in Lieu for Southwest Edina. 5. Heritage Rembrandt nursing home (southwest corner of Xerxes Avenue and the Crosstown Highway). 6. G.G.C. Company (apartments at County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway).