Loading...
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