HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 11-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularTHE I'DIP(t. PU' 41TNG CO"`NISSION
III;LD 1IT DNESDAY, NOVETIBER 1, 1972
13I)INA VTLLPCL BALL
Members Present„ W',, W� Lewis, chairman, S. P. Hughes, C. 17� Johnson, I), T. Runyan,
D. C. Sherrranm Go V, Johnson, and R. Ko Erickson.
Staff Present,. G. Luce, R. lkinn, and L., Nye.
I� ALjpEov l oK _.the October 4 1972 Planning Cori:i:ss_don Minutes.
A motion was made by Mr. G„ Johnson and seconded by Mr-, C, Johnson to approve
the October 4, 1.972, Planning Cosariis.sion Minutes as submitte& Mot oa Carried.
11, 111 ARINGS
Z-72-3 Karl Krahlo Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and west of
Arctic idaym�R—I Sint Sin5,1e Residence District to PRD --3 Planned
;'�esiclential Distric-, ..
azul
SP -72-1.7 El located south of Vernon Nvenue and west cr
Arctic Way,, (Karl Krahl Property).
Mr. Luce reviewed the steep and heavily t;jooded site in question is 7.75 acres,
the proposed use for which is a 51 unit townhouse project (approximately 6.61 units-,
per acre) lie noted those areas whare preservation of the slopes and natural
vegetation. is to be maintained, and explained that although it will be minir,al., it
rayl]. include a rediction of the top of the 'hill by about 40 feet;, the dirt would be
moved to the northeasternmost portion of the property and to the front and western
areas, Piro Luce r,'Lcorimended the request for rezoning and :subdi-,,ision be denied for
this project because the cut and fill operation would cause. severe danage to the
site, because the: amount of surface cover proposed, including, building and blacktop
as a result of the internal road system, is tremendous and would create za possible
runoff problem, and beca", e the lowering of the hill. and removal of vegetation would
eliminate the sound buffer the site provides and woul] increase the noise transmission
from tate Crosstown Highway across the lands north of Verncn Avenue.
11ro Luce recalled that several development alternatives, including townhouses
and multiple units, have been presented and denied for this site; the Planning! Commission
has indicated that �-A reascriabl.e number of units per acre op. the site would be eight
to ten, assuming, the units are constructed in one or two raul.tipl.e buildings. In
conformance with that, the staff recominended a multiple dwelling; project for this
property, constructed as far west as possible on the lowe,,slopes, thus preserving;
the top of the hill , at an density of about eight tor) ten units per acre.,
Mr, Marl Krrahl, the property owner, presented two schemtes for apartment
developments on thc. Bill., one on the lo,,aer portion and one on the top of the hill.,
Lace r�asponded ti plans involve t!ie same cut and Hill nrv':lems presentin sloe
townhouse-rOposal -
Lir., Hughes and sie=.era] members of t!ie.. Co~inission suggested the oq:'ner may be
aittemptin.g, t7 p„he side zad should cons -L -ler a-Lownhouse proje zt of about
four to five :snits per acr M4, it -,% Krahl di_sng;read .r -inti stated that single family !zones
,,r toinihouses will lestroy the hill an() develop -meat. at four units per acre is not
economically feasiOle,
Mina Plann-ing Cot-viission -2w November 3, 1972
Following further discussion, '•ire Sherman moved the .'rezoning and subdivision
requests be denies], as recommended by the staff; the sta'•�f should, however, give the
developer/owner some direction as to the type of development that would be allowed
on the site. tiro Hughes seconded the motion,:
Tires Robert Kasbohm, 6147 Arctic Way, chairman of the Edina Homeowners Coalition,
reminded the Commission of the open space report being, considered and noted that
this piece of land is one of several around the Village included in that plan.£or
possible purchase by the Vi3lage of rdina. Ile added tl-iat "it is important to those
committee members to know the official status of the report before the Coalition can
make a recommendation on development of this propertyBO. Mr. Luce explained a group
of interested people rret with the Park, Engineering, and Plannin;; Departments staff,
note(] those properties in Edina which might be purchased for open space purposes,
an(' then tried to determine which had priority. Ile state.d the Village iaas been
loaned a person from IIIJI) who will be calculating the open space areas and their
cost in an attempt to determine whether a bond issue wouJd be in order. The committee
was not, however, a Council or Mayor appointed committee and thus has no official
function, without which it is difficult to ask the property owner to wait for some
action or determination as a result of this study.
Air., Kasbohm stated the homeowners associations feel the townhouse proposal
presented merely represents those items denied in the past, and added that although
the Coalition had previously recommended the density on this site remain at six units
per acre, several. Commission members had indicated that eight units per acre might
be reasonable, not "eight to tenter, as suggested by the staff. Ile requested this
information be -made a matter of record.
Following further discussion, Mr. Sherman repeated his motion, which had been
seconded by Mr. Hughes. All voted aye. ^lotion carried.
7.-72-6 Relocation Real ty*_ (Tine Country Homes of Braemar hills). Parcel
4026 Sectiones Township ]]G�Rs.rage 23. Cene_rally located east. of
_---- ----
Braemar Park and soutli of Gleason 'toad. R-1 Siwrle Family Residential
District to PRD --'2 Planned -Residential District,. � r�
and
SP -72-19 The Country Homes of Braemar IUJ J s � Parcel 4020. Section i3.Townshi2
116, Ranke 21.General) located east of Braemar Park and south of
Gleason Road.
�.
!f?r,, Duce presented the Southwest Edina PJ an map and indicated the location of
the property in question and the strip of land to the vest, adjacent to Braemar Park,
which has been purchased by the Village of 1"dins,, lie briefly explained the type of
development proposed and pointed out tine location of the six -unit and four -unit per
structure buildings,. lie noted Gleason Road is proposed to swing; east and connect
with Barth Road
Mr. Luce recalled this proposail was continued from the October Plann='.ni;
Coi-tmission meeting, and discussions have since been underway with the adjoining
property owner in an attempt to combine f the Relocation Realty and Tanen property in
one development. if this is not -possible, as land trade between the Village of Tsdina
and the developer may be appropriate, as the Part: I)ep_irtment has been attempting to
acquire additional land in this area.,
; diva Pla niTig Cornission 3- I.ovemb^r 1, 1972
With these alternatives in mind, Mr. Luce reconneadled the Planning; Co:irAcsion
instruct the staff to pursue this kind of devel.opment at the density proposed)
(about 4„6 units per acre), with the understanding that if an agreement cannot be
reached between the proponent and Mr. Danen in an attempt_ to join their properties
in a single development, a possible land trade between the developer and the Village
should be considered to acquire additional park properties. Fir. lluphes so moved.
11r. hale Crer►ers, the, developer, stated the project would generally incltuie
°"six^ -unit, large type, mansion looking„ buildings doge with different exteriors".
Ile pointed out the "bad soil areas" on both properties, noting that if this type of
development appears feasible, arc, gotiations would continue with Fir. Danen to develop
both sites at about five units per acre.
?fro Roy Erickson suggested the motion be revised so the Comrission is informed
of the results of the negotiations between the two land owners before a land trade
is recommended.
Mr, 'lughes withdrew his original motion and moved the requested rezoning; and
subdivis';..on be referred to the staff for further study, Mr. Erickson seconded the
notion.. h1l voted Aye. Motion Carried,
Z-72-7 Gary Vin.get, Lot - and Part of Lot 6, Heath Glen. Generally located
at the northwest corner of Glasgow Drive and I1est 78th Street. R-1
Fanily�Dis_4ri_ct to R-2 Multiple Residential District,
a I " d
LD -72--12 Gary Vine. Lot 5 and part of Lot 6. heath ,Men.Generally located
at the norw;l►crest corner of GJasg;ow Drive and West 78th Street.
Mr„ Luce stated an eNisting; double bungalow is boated on Lots 6 incl 7, Ileath
Glen, the survey for which shows a portion of Lot 0 excluded from the proposed
building lot. This request includes that division of Lot 6, and the rezoning; of
Lot 5 and part of Lot 6 from R-1 to R-2 to pet -mit the construction of R double
bungalow, probably facing= ':lest 7,"A"h Street.,; The lot would be approximate3y 16,115
:square feet, however, only approximately 14,000 square feet would be buildable in
terms of a logical calculation of lot size and setbacks. The minimum lot size for
4a double bungalow is 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Luce recommended denial of the rezonin►a and lot division because it would
not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan, Lot 5 was platted to permit a single family
dwelling; facing Glasgow Drive, and the useable Jot size is not adequate for a dct►ble
bungalow.
Mr, Ving;e was present and requested, the proposal be approved,, Ile presented plans
for a double bu.ig;alow which ccrrld be constructed on the site in question,
Following; brief disclassion. Mr,, G, dchrisor, stated t:hai.- althol-gh this request could
be a technical solution to the problem, it is not a practical oite„ Ile then moved the
rE:`J.oning, and division be denied, as recommended by the -st iff, _, and !Ir., llughes seconcledl
the motion,, All voted ave. 'Notion carried.
Edina Planning Commission
LD -72-13 Douglas S. Daniels
Terrace.
Piro Luce explained the request
both of which would exceed 25,000 s
15,000 to 18,000 square feet; the 1
on a steep hill and thus are extrem
area, up to 70,000 to 80,000 square
In reply to the Commission, he note
northern portion would be buildable
proper setbacks.
Following brief discussion,
according to the staff's recotmn
All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. South Edina Plan.
-4- November 1, 1972
lock 1.. Elizabe
s to divide the existing lot into two parcels,
uare feet. The lots to the east are about
is across Valley View Road, however, are located
ly large. The division of other lots in the
feet, has also been discussed with the staff.
a house exists on the southern portion; the
in terms of square footage, frontage, and
Mr.�Erickson moved the requested division be approved,
nda ion, and Mr, C. Johnson seconded the motion.
Mr. Luce explained that the South Edina Plan map, including that land from Cahill
Road to the east Village limits and from approximately 70th Street to the south Village
limits, was recently completed. It incorporates the Southeast Edina Plan area, the
comprehensive plan for which was granted concept approval. in 1.970 contingent on a
traffic study, and slightly revised last year when the Hennepin County library was
proposed. A traffic study done by aniel, ?Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall (DMJPt) has
since been completed and information from it has been incorporated into the revised
South Edina Plan, although an attem t has been made to conform as much as possible
to the land uses agreed to in the old Southeast Edina Plan. Ile suggested a public
hearing be held at the December Planning Commission meeting; all appropriate questions
should be asked and recorded at that time, with solutions or comments to be provided
at the January meeting.
Fir. Erickson moved a public hearing he scheduled for 1.he December 6, 1972,
Planning Commission meeting, at whi h time the procedure discussed would be imple-
mented. No further comments being eard, Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
2. Edina
Mr. Luce presented the report
basically updates past reports and
with in making decisions regarding
Commission noted receipt of the re
VI, Adjournment.
ititled "Summer of 72"' and indicated it
'gives a synopsis of what we must be concerned
:he future use of the property". The Planning
)rt and accepted it for study.
Respectfully submi-eted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary