Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 01-08 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1975 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, C. E. Johnson, R. E. Kremer, D. T. Runyan, and 14. McDonald. Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner; R. Dunn, City Engineer; and L. Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the November 26, 1974, and December 11, 1974, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. Kremer to approve the November 26, 1974, and December 11, 1974, Planning Commission minutes as written. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. SUBDIVISIONS: S-75-1 Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition. Generally located east of Lincoln Drive, west of Londonderry Road, north of Londonderry Drive, and south of Parkwood Road. Mr. Luce explained the proposed lot sizes in the requested 36 lot single family subdivision vary from 12,500 to 16,000 square feet and approximate the lot + sizes in Parkwood Knolls 17th Addition, located immediately east. The proposed subdivision conforms to the preliminary plat presented and approved for the entire area when Parkwood Knolls 17th Addition was platted in 1972, and also includes a road for western access. Approval was recommended with the following modifications: 1. Outlot A proposed must be eliminated and that land incorporated into an adjacent lot. 2. A low point in the curve of Parkwood Road must be eliminated to allow adequate surface drainage. 3. As accomplished when previous Parkwood Knolls additions were platted, a 5% parkland dedication must be made to the City in the form of a "floating deed" for an amount of land equivalent to 50 of the land being platted; the "floating deeds" collected will entitle the City to choose a future park location in the Carl Hansen property to the north. In reply to Mr. Hughes, Por. Luce recalled the City Council recently approved an access road directly to the west through the Rauenhorst property, although it has not been determined whether the road should be built along the north or south side. Mr. Dunn indicated the proposed plat could be approved with the understanding that actual construction of that western access road could slightly V ust the lot lines of the two adjacent lots proposed (lots 1 and 4). Following brief discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the requested 36 lot plat of "Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition" be approved, if modified as outlined by the staff. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. REZONINGS: 1-8-75 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 Z-74-7 Folke Victorsen (The Timbers). Generallv located at the southwest corner of Gleason Road and the Crosstown Highway. R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District. Mr. Luce recalled that Mr. Victorsen appeared before the Planning Commission in November, 1974, to request final plan approval for project containing 21 single family lots with a 74 unit apartment building on the north side of the hill. The Planning Commission did not approve the final plans for that project because of the steep road grades and substantial environmental damage, but suggested the developer return with a concept request for an apartment building at 8 units per acre, located as far north on the site as possible. Mr. Luce referred to the statistical data, elevations and cross sections submitted, and explained that fir. Victorsen is now requesting rezoning fora 170 unit apartment building on the 20 (+ or -) acre site; 8.5 dwelling units per acre are requested, with 8.8% lot coverage. Mr. Luce clarified that although the building would be primarily a four story structure, 20% of the building would be five stories and 10% would be six stories. Mr. Luce recommended the concept proposed be approved at 8 units per acre, with a 5% cash parkland dedication and dedication of the undeveloped portion of the site as open space. Regarding the parkland dedication requirement, Mr. Luce explained that when 100% of the site is used in the density and other calculations for a multiple residential project, a 5% cash parkland dedication is normally required. If land is donated instead of cash, then a 5% or greater reduction in the use of the land results. In this case, the entire 20 acre site was used in calculating the proposed density, therefore, a 5% cash dedication should be required. If a cash dedication is not given, then there should be a 5% reduction in the amount of land upon which the density and other calculations are based. Lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Victorsen stated he is willing to donate the remaining undeveloped portion of the site, but would be unwilling to donate a 5% fee as well. He felt he should be allowed 8 units per acre, not the firm 160 units discussed, as initial surveys indicate the property may be slightly more than 20 acres. Mr. Runyan noted that Alison Fuhr asked him to inform the Planning Commission that the Soil and Water Conservation District favors and supports this most recent development proposal. Mr. C. Johnson moved the concept presented for a 4-6 story apartment building on the north side of the hill be approved at 8 units per acre, provided the undeveloped portion of the site is dedicated to the City, with the understanding that the question of a unit reduction or additional cash dedication will be determined when approval of the requisite subdivision is requested. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye. I -lotion carried. IV. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Mr. Lewis stated he had received a letter from Frank Dean, the present Planning Commission representative on the Park Board, resigning his position on the Park Board because of severe time limitations, and asking that a Commissioner be appointed to replace him. 1-8-75 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 After brief discussion, Mr. Runyan moved the Planning Commission accept Mr. Dean's resignation and recommend to the Council the appointment of Mary McDonald to replace him as the Planning Commission member on the Park Board. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary AGENDA Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, January 29, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Approval of the January 8, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes. II. LOT DIVISIONS: LD -75-1 LaVeryl L. & Doris J. Lahner. Outlot B, Braemar Hills Fourth Addition. Generally located at 7018 Tupa Circle. III. REZOITINGS : Z-74-12 Lowry Hill Enterprises, Inc. Generally located at the southwest corner of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District. IV. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Open Space Committee Report. 2. Election of Officers. V. Adjournment. a MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1975 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D. T. Runyan, R. E. Kremer, M. McDonald, C. E. Johnson, G. V. Johnson, and F. S. Dean. Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner; R. Dunn, City Engineer; G. Hughes, City Environmental Planner; and L. Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the January 8, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion to approve the January 8, 1975, Planning Commission minutes as written was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. Kremer. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. LOT DIVISIONS: LD -75-1 LaVeryl L. & Doris J. Lahner. Outlot B, Braemar Hills Fourth Addition. Generally located at 7018 Tupa Circle. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the proponent's request to divide Outlot B, Braemar Hills Fourth Addition in half and combine the north half with Lot 8, Block 2, Braemar Hills Fifth Addition and the south half with Lot 1, Block 1, Braemar Hills Fourth Addition; the division would not create an additional buildable lot, and it would eliminate the possibility that the outlot might be tax forfeited in the future. A motion to approve the requested, division as recommended was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Dean. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. REZONINGS: Z-74-12 Lowry Hill Enterprises, Inc. Generally located at the southwest corner_ of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District. Mr. Luce recalled that in November, 1974, the Planning Commission asked the staff and developers to meet with the Southwest Edina residents to discuss the proposed five story buildings. Two meetings were held; at the first meeting most of the residents present were opposed to the five story project, although it appeared that many of those people were opposed to any apartment development in Southwest Edina. There were mixed emotions among the few people who attended the second meeting. Mr. Luce recommended denial of the proposed five story multiple residential project. He stated that while he would agree with the environmental planner that five story buildings on the site would significantly reduce the impact on the physical environment, the visibility impact would be increased and a precedent may be set for future five story construction on other undeveloped property in the area. In addition, the proposal does not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan, and any amendment may destroy the confidence in that plan by the Southwest Edina residents, if they were opposed to -the change. 1-29-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 Mr. Dennis Madden, "the real estate broker involved", stated the principals of Lowry Hill Enterprises are requesting a five story apartment development because of the land itself and soil characteristics, the potential zoning, economics, and a state tax advantage for using type 1 construction (concrete construction, sound- proofing, fireproofing, etc.). Mr. James Cooperman, the architect, explained the concept proposed consists of 276 units in two five -story buildings, connected on the first floor with a recreation wing. He presented a model and graphics illus- trating the site location, the adjacent land use, a site analysis, a preliminary grading and utilities plan, a building floor plan layout (98 one -bedroom units, 118 two-bedroom units, and 60 three-bedroom units), elevations, and typical unit floor plans (840-920 square foot one -bedroom units, 1340-1650 square foot two-bedroom units, and 2000+ square foot three-bedroom units). Mr. Cooperman and Mr. Tom Hanson of Hanson and Russell presented slides illustrating various views of the building on the site as it would appear from different distances and locations in the neighborhood "to show that we aren't talking about a big, massive building." Mr. Dean stated that "as far as representing the neighborhood, I would have to oppose the five stories, and I personally feel the same way. It does set a precedent and the visual impact is of a very large, massive structure, so I feel the people will find it objectionable." He recalled the arguments encountered during consideration of the Southwest Edina Plan and related rezonings. Mr. Madden stated that "as we are evolving, we have to go beyond the con- sideration of somebody living on the hill and looking down on this property. We are getting into the fear of the unknown and the fact that most people are against change of any kind." He added that "we want to build a quality, soundproof, fire- proof building that will be a permanent residence in an area designated for apart- ments by the Southwest Edina Plan, but in order to do that, and in light of the dubious soil characteristics, we have got to go five stories because of the tax break considerations so that we can adjust the land schedule accordingly." Mr. Dean responded that he "recognizes that a number of changes are occurring, but this particular project, while it may be admirable in reaching certain goals, is inappropriate for the area." Discussion followed regarding wood versus concrete construction, the expected parkland dedication, possible relocation of the west wing of the project, and prior meetings with and commitments to the Southwest Edina residents. Mr. Hughes moved the rezoning request be continued to the next meeting for further discussion. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion, observing that the Planning Commission's dilemma appears to be in weighing the height and scale of the building and overall concept and the general scale of the whole area versus the quality construction, large unit sizes, etc. proposed. He suggested the Planning Commission visit the site and surrounding neighborhood prior to the next meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. IX. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Open Space Report. Mr. Luce stated the City Council has referred the Open Space Report to the Planning Commission, the Park Board, and the Environmental Quality Commission for comment.prior to the March 3rd Council meeting. 1-29-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 Mr. Gordon Hughes, the environmental planner, recalled the background of the Open Space Committee and presented slides showing detailed descriptions of each of the sites recommended for acquisition and describing the method of analysis used by the Committee. Nine parcels totalling 105 acres are recommended for acquisition; four of the parcels would be used for active recreation, two for protection of natural resources, and three as a combination of protection and recreation. Three parcels would be acquired by subdivision dedication, two by life estates, and four by purchase, to be financed with a bond issue totalling about $1 million. Following discussion, it was decided that Mr. Gordon Hughes should schedule a field trip for a Saturday morning prior to March 3rd so the Planning Commission members can further review the Open Space Report and can visit each of the sites recommended for acquisition. No further action taken. 2. Election of Officers. Mr. G. Johnson moved the present Planning Commission officers (William W. Lewis, Chairman, and Samuel P. Hughes, Chairman Pro Tem) be re-elected. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary