HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 09-15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes SpecialMIN= OF 19,E SPE1,`IAL MEEl';NG OF
!r
RE UDINA PLIV�Nl_ ING CTtaSSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1971.
EDINA VILIAGE HALT,
Members Presentt Messrs, W,, W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, Co E. Johnson, D" T;,
Runyan, D. Co Sherman, J. S. Hoyt, Jr., and G. V,, Johnson.
Staff Present: G. Luce, R. Dunn, and L. Nye,,
10 REZONINGS:
Z-71-6 Folke R. Victorsen. R-1 to PRD-2.West of Gleason Road and south of
the Crosstown Highway® Concept Ap.2LqzI.
�j
Mr,, Keith Waters of Brauer and Associates reviewed the plan changes made as a
result of several neighborhood meetings held over the past ten months, as follows:
to all apartment units originally proposed on the northwest side of the hill have
been removed and the area will be retained in its natural condition; 20 the townhouses
originally proposed near Arrowhead Lake at the southwest corner of the site have been
removed and replaced with seven single family lots; 3. the total number of units has
been reduced from 107 to 99 (72 apartments, 20 toTonhouses, and 7 single family lots);
and 4. the townhouses orifiillilocated at the southeast corner of the site have been
reduced, and acreage has been eliminated from the overall plan (19.6 acres remaining)
to permit construction of a house for Mr. Victorsen located on a lot directly east of
the Roger Christgau residence (6500 Indian Hills Pass), He noted that the three westerly
single family lots will depend on access from future development on the church property
to the north; access to the other four lots will have to come over the top of the hill,
following a general configuration of the existing road, He explained that the apart-
ment buildings will be three stories with two levels c4f underground parking and will
be primarily of brick construction to retain as much natural color as possible; one
building will have 30 units and the other will have 42, He stated that a definite mix
of apartment units has not been determined, as it would be of little value until concept
approval is granted,,
Mr,, James, Larkin, an attorney representing the homeowners, reviewed the original
compromise plan presented by Mr, Carl Dale, the planner retained by the residents, and
stated that substantial steps have been made toward a compromise,, He stated that
justification for the origInal proposal by Mr. Victorsen was that the topography of
this land makes it unfeasible to develop R-1. He indicated that the landowners,
"although they are not happy with the proposed development oil the hill, have come to
the consensus that they are willing to accept apartments to the point where they will
resolve Mr, Victorsen's initially stated prcblem"He clarified that they are not
opposed to the same number of units permitted in the Western Edina Plan and the use of
the Planned Residential District ordinance and concept in order to group the units,
provided the developer is not giver:; an additional bonus to increase the density based
on the topography. He suwmiarized that, in short, the n:.1.1ighbors will accept as a
compromise essentially the 'Layout proposed, with the reduction of apartment units
and the reduction of townhouses nearest the single family homes on Indian Hi31_8 bass
so that the overall density for the project is what it would be if developed PRD -1
(the density proposed in the Western Edina Plan); barring the limitation of density,
however, the neighborhood -Us opposc-.,.d. to the rezoning,, Mr. Larkin added that the residents
request, also, that a bicycle and pedestrian path be provided U'long the road, that the
actual remaining acreage be clarifsed (Mr. Dale indicated it is 18,,2 acres, ard Bruer
and Associates indicated it is 19.6 acres), and that the townhouses be for sale rather
than for rent.
Edina Planning Commission -2@ September 15, 1971
Mr. Don Brauer stated that both economics and ecology are the reasons theyjare
requesting 25% more density, as the property is not the typical, average piece of
property to develop because the sewer and road, etc., and that necessary to develop it
well will take more money. He added that the path along the road can be provided, but
it will require more intrusion into the environment. Mr. Larkin responded that since
the applicant is requesting rezoning, the burden should be on him to demonstrate, "not
by illusions, but by solid figures", that the homeowners proposal is not economically
feasible,
Mr. Hughes stated that the Commission should stay within the boundaries of the
Western Edina Plan, and Mr. Sherman responded that the plan was adopted as a reference.
He added that the developer has done an excellent job to minimize the ecological
effects, etc., and deserves some consideration. Mr. Runyan stated that the development
of this property cannot be compared to the development of a typical flat property Which
is completely accessible from all sides. Mr. Larkin again stated that the applicant
should be required to provide a building cost analysis to demonstrate that a lower
density is uneconomical.
Mr. C. Johnson stated that the homeowners and developers appear to be fairly close
together, and proposed that both compromise further and agree on a density of 405 or 4.6
units per acreo Although several residents stated that the Planning Cornission should
require a density in accordance with the Western Edina Plan, Air. Harry A. Murphy of
6508 Indian Hills Road stated that he would be willing to compromise to 4.5 units per
acre,
In response to Mr. Lewis, no objections were heard regarding the townhouses in
their present location. Mr, Lewis stated that in previous instances the Planning
Commission has refused to amend the maximum density provided in the Western Edina Plano,
and he cannot therefore approve the plan proposed, which would exceed that density.
Following further discussion, Mr,, Victorsen agreed to reduce the apartment units
to 62 and retain the remainder of the proposal as presented. Dr. Glenn M. Lewis of
6328 Gleason Road stated that the homeowners would agree to the reduction of apartments
by 10 only if the density of the townhouses is also reduced to provide a total density
of not more than four units per acre.
Mr. C. Johnson moved that the concept be approved, provided the nuivber of apart-
ment units is reduced by 10 (89 total units on the site). Mr. Hughes questioned the
actual acreage of the site, and Mr. Luce stated that at this point, the developer's
figures are assumed accurate, however, a survey will be required as part of the overall
development plane In response to this, Mr. Roger Christgau of 6500 Indisn Hills Pass
requested that Outlot A not be included in the acreage, as it is part of the Indian
Hills subdivision and is to be retained as a recreational lot for Indian. Hills. Air.
Luce responded that the Village cannot become involved in restrictive covenants applied
to a lot in a particular subdivision, as these covenants can only be enforced by the
landowners,
Following further discussion, Air. C. Johnson amended the motion, as clarified by
Mr. Hoyt, to approval of the concept presented of 62 apartment units, 20 townhouses,
and 7 single family lots, provided the overall density does not exceed 4.55 units per
acre when the acreage is officially determined, and if so, any reduction. that might
result from a lower acreage ?oust be eliminated from the apartment units rather than
from the townhouses",, Mr. Sherman seconded the motion. Messrs. C. Johnson, Bunyan,
Sherman, and G. Johnson voted aye, Messrs. Lewis and; Hughes voted nay, Motion Carried,
Edina Planning; CojiLmission -3- September 15, 1971
Z-71-15
ation
a1.
3. Sou
Mr. Luce recalled that the proposal is for 12 units per acre and that two previous
proposals for rezoning were denied, as they did not conform to the Western Edina Plan
and did not properly respect the site, He stated that the request was continued from
the September 1st meeting so that the residents could take the opportunity to investigate
this and other townhouse developments and meet with the proponents. As a result, it
appeared that some agreement was .reached that this is'a reaaonable plan, based on 12
units per acre, however, an extended setback from the east property line from 35 feet to
50 feet was requested. Mr. Luce reviewed the concept, which involves a combination
of townhouses and 0°composite townhouses" (garden apartments), and indicated that because
this plan responds to the topography and is the type of development proposed in the
Western Edina Plan and the :Tanned Residential District ordinance, the staff would
recommend approval,
Mr. Rudolph Dante of Landmark Development Corporation stated that in addition to
the extended setback, the residents requested that the townhouse units located at the
southwest corner of the site be moved up the hill. He indicated that in the revised
concept, the large mass of townhouses has been moved to the north and has been reduced
from 43 composite townhouses to 33, 10 units have been added to the more singular
townhouse type of development, the original road pattern has been changed, and a
minimum setback from the east property line of 60 feet will be maintained.
Mr„ Runyan observed that in the original. proposal the hill topography will
essentially oe left in its natural state,: Mr. Dante responded that the foliage in the
revised concept will remain very much in its natural state, and added that although the
"scrub vegetation" will be `®greened rip", any growth beneficial to the area will not be
removed. Mr. Dante, in reply to Mr,, Sherman, cla-_ified that the revised concept has as
little or less land modification as the original proposal. as the mass of townhouses
has been reduced by 10 units c.nd moved to an area where the contours are less.
Mr. Frank Berman, 6152 Arctic: Way, and Mr. Holloway, 6150 Arctic Way, questioned
the significance of the Western Edina Plan. Mr„ Lewis responded that the plan is a broad
guideline for development and reminded the residents that the proposal is in conformance
with the plana Mr. Michael Danylux of 6106 Arctic Way stated that the proposed
density is too high and the buffer zone separating the existing single family homes and
the townhouses is not sufficient,
Mr. Dante, in reply to Mr. Hughes, stated that 75,000 square feet of ground (23x)
is being covered with buildings (thy: total square footage is 337,286). He added that if
roads are included, there will still. be 2,000 square feet of open space per unit. In
reply to Mrs Runyan, Mr. Dante clarified that the composite town1house units are units
clustered together, thus maintaining the density but eliminating any destruction to the
site. He attempted to clarify the "composite townhousefiA mass further by stating that
the units are joined together, however, all of the entries to the units are on grade
level, there will be no living quarter;:: bel(nj grade, and all units are one or two stories
from grade, Mr,, Dante clarified that the original plan called for 50 townhouses and
43 composite townhouses; the revised plan has -60 of the more individual townhouses and
33 of the composites. He ceded that the units will be yor sale for $50,000 to $68,000.
Mr. Runyan observed that the site appears extremely "filled up", however, the hill
has been respected. Mro Luce indicated that the previous proposals were for typical,
three story frame apartment buildings, however, the developer is presently attempting to
Edina Planning Commissio-:a -4- September 15, 1971
open the land but is not proposing any extensive
Western Edina Plan permi�-_s a moderate amount of
has used a reasonable approach.
cut and fill, He indicated that the
density an the site., and the developer
Mr. Robert Kasbohm of 6147 Arctic Way summarized a statement from the residents
in which concern was expressed regarding the significance of the "5 to 12 units per
acretv designated in the Western Edina. Plan, the density proposed, preservation of the
vegetation and topography, traffic congestion, change in character of the surrounding
community, etc., He stated that the residents would request that the matter be continued
to a later date so that a competent planner and attorney can be contacted regardirg the
development in the entire area east of County Road 18 and west of and including the
property in question. He indicated that the residents would have a report at the October
6th meeting as to who tziey have contacted and how much time it would take them to
respond.
Mr. Sherman stated that he -would like more I-aformation on the development of
the "composite townhouses", and added that although the general concept appears favor-
able, the hard cover propoued appears excessive.
M.-. Hughes agreed that a more adequate concept should be provided regarding the
proposed "mass", and moved that the matter be postponed to the October meeting, at
which time a report from the residents should also be presented. Mr. C. Johnson seconded
the motion. All Voted A,,,e,, Motion Carried.
Z-7149 G.G.C._.qompany. R-1 to PRD -3. Northeast corner of the Crosstown
Highway and gountyKqa A gonced 18
-
Mr. Luce recalled the request to construct 168 apartment units on property located
south of Fabri-Tek and east of County Road 18; the proposal presented is in conformance
with the Western Edina Plan, as the request is for 12 units per acre,, He noted that
the request was continued from the September list meeting so that a traffic study could
be made.
Mr., Jack Anderson of Midwest Planning and Research presented the requested
traffic investigation and analysis, tae purpose of which was to review the traffic
patterns as they relate to the develapm,,,int proposed. He concluded that no traffic
problem exists, as the site is oriented in such a way that most of the traffic generated
from the site is oriented to County Road 18 and the Cresstown Highway (the interchange
serving Fabri-Tek would also serve this site). He defined Roushar Road and Vernon
Avenue as collectors, Gleason Road. as a Yitinor arterial and the Crosstown Highway alad
County Road 18 as major arterials. He stated that Fabri-Tek affects the entire ar,3a
to a great degree because all employees arrive at 8:00 a.m. and leave at 4:30 p.m.,
however, the traffic on the. site would be generated differently because the people
would be leaving and arriving during an extended period of time. He stated that the
hazard on County Road 18 will be alleviated when future construction is completed. Mr.
Anderson stated that the number of trips per day generated by apartment developments is
6.3 per dwelling unit, thus, for this particular development, the trips per day figure
is just over 1,000. He indicated that the problem is to allocate the trips per day to
the street system, and noted that although no one lies any data on that, the 1969 Hennepin
County Traffic Maps show that five legs of traffic lead away from the County Road 18 -
Crosstown Highway interchaiiSe area, frora which percentages were drawn,, -He noted that
the assumption was made that the people will split their trips per day the same way as
the traffic observed in the County study; of 100 people who live on the site, 29 will
V
Edina Planning Commissiva _-_Ya_ September 15, 1971
go north on County Road 18., IS will go souch,, 20 will go west, 9.5 will go northeast on
Vernon Avenue, and 24 will go east on the Crosstown Highway,, Ile concluded that traffic
going north, south, or west will use the County Road 18 interchange. Regarding the
9.51 who will use Vernon Avenue and the 24% who will use the Crosstown, Mr. Anderson
indicated that the amount of time it takes to reach any given point comes out very
similar no matter which route is taken, so lie took the percentages of t---ips and
split them, coming up with less than 40 cars generated from this site which would pass
the Walnut Drive -Arctic Way area at the peak hour, In reply to Mr. Fraiik Berman,
6152 Arctic Way, Mr. Anderson stated that in his opinion no traffic counts would be
valid at this point due to the extensive construction on Vernon Avenue.
Several residents questioned the validity of the percentages used, expecially
as they concern the 905% who are expected to use Vernon Avenue, as they felt this would
be increased considerably,,, They generally agreed that if Vernon Avenue could be dead -
ended west of Walnut Drive, it would appear to solve the problem, as the apartment
traffic would be forced to use County Road 18,, Mr. Duqn revie�.-ed the status of the
frontage road proposed between Roushar and Gleason Roads, and indicated that without
another route to move traffic to the east, the dead -ending of Vernon Avenue would not
be considered.
Following considerable discussion, Mr,. Hughes.moiied the request he continued
for further consideration va the October 6th meeting, to permit the residents report
after a planner and attorne,
.7 have been contacted regarding the development of the entire
northeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and County load 18. Mrs, G. Johnson seconded
the notion,, All Voted Aye,, Motion Carried.
Ii. Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae Nye, Secretary