HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 05=28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Of
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1975
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman,
D. T. Runyan, and R. E.
Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner,
Secretary.
S. P. Hughes, G. V. Johnson, C. E. Johnson,
Kremer.
R. C. Dunn, City Engineer, and L. Nye,
I. Approval of the April 30, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes.
A motion to approve the April 30,1975, Planning Commission minutes as written
and submitted was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. G. Johnson. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
II. SUBDIVISIONS:
S-75-6 M. P. Johnson's Prospect Hills 3rd Addition. Generally located north
of Kemrich Drive, south of Lee Valley Circle, and east of Fleetwood
Drive.
Mr. Luce recalled a preliminary subdivision plan for the area was submitted
several years ago, and the proposed 17 lot plat is similar to that preliminary
plan. He recalled that when the land directly south was recently subdivided (M.P.
Johnson's Prospect Hills 2nd Addition), Lanham Lane was extended north of Kemrich
Drive; the proposed subdivision would further extend Lanham Lane to connect the
existing north and south sections of that road. Mr. Luce noted the average lot
size would be 16,570 square feet, and a 70 foot wide strip of land along the eastern
property line would be dedicated for park purposes to join with the park strip
donated when M. P. Johnson's Prospect Hills 2nd Addition was platted. Approval
of the preliminary plat was recommended because the lot sizes are in conformance
with those in adjacent subdivisions and because the proposal is in conformance with
the original subdivision plan submitted.
After brief discussion, Mr. Runyan moved the proposed subdivision of M. P.
Johnson's Prospect Hills 3rd Addition be approved pursuant to the staff's recommenda-
tion, provided a developer's agreement satisfactory to the Engineering Department is
submitted prior to final plat approval. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All
voted,,aye. Motion carried.
S-75-7 Warden Acres -Austin Replat. Generally located south of Grove Street
and east of Johnson Drive.
Mr. Luce stated the requested seven lot subdivision proposes a future loop
road along the south boundary of lots 36 and 37, Warden Acres; a 30 foot right of way
for the north half of that road is included in the plat. He recalled that when a
similar subdivision received preliminary plat approval from the City Council in 1973,
a wri.tten opinion from the City Attorney recommended that proposed lots 4 and 5 be
combined and platted as one lot because lot 5 would not have direct access to a
public street until and unless the proposed loop road were constructed.
Mr. Luce stated that approval of the requested subdivision is recommended
with the following modifications and contingencies: 1. the staff would concur with
the City Attorney's opinion and would require that the south half of the property
located east of Oak Lane be platted as one lot rather than two; 2. further, an
easement should be dedicated and a temporary cul-de-sac constructed at the south end
I
5-28-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2
of Oak Lane; that easement would be released if and when Oak Lane is extended east
and north to service other properties; and 3. a 5% cash donation ($2500) must be
given by the developer in lieu of parkland to satisfy the parkland dedication
requirement.
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Oak Lane right of way between
proposed blocks 1 and 2 would be 50 feet wide. They suggested that the right of way
donated for the possible future eastern extension of Oak Lane be 25 feet wide rather
than 30 feet wide to avoid confusion when and if the right of way for the south half
of that proposed loop road is acquired.
Following discussion of possible future lot divisions in the area should Oak
Lane be extended east and north to complete the loop road, Mr. Hughes moved the
requested subdivision be approved as recommended by the staff, with the added
modification that a 25 foot rather than 30 foot street right of way be dedicated
along the south property line. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
S-75-8 Nine Mile North 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the
Londonderry townhouse development, east of Lincoln Drive and Nine Mile
Creek, and west of Londonderry Road.
Mr. Luce stated the proposed preliminary plat is being requested at the present
time partially for the city's benefit in obtaining right of way for the extension of
Dovre Drive over Nine Mile Creek to Lincoln Drive in accordance with the Western
Edina Traffic Study. He explained the six -lot plat would include three single
family lots on each side of the Dovre Drive extension; the lots on the south side
would be about 13,000 square feet, while the lots on the north side would range from
29,400 square feet to 33,000 square feet. Mr. Luce noted, however, that because
80% of the property north of the road is located within the Nine Mile Creek floodplain,
the north side lots should be reduced to a depth of 120 feet and all of the land north
of the rear lot lines should be dedicated to eliminate concern about the ownership
and possible future development of a floodplain. Also, excessive filling would alter
the amount of storm water storage within the north branch of Nine Mile Creek and could
affect the storage demand for Bredesen Park. Mr. Luce stated the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District has recommended the plat be approved in that adequate building
sites.,could be provided without exceeding the 20/ maximum fill limitation for
properties within a floodplain.
Mr. Luce recommended approval of the requested subdivision, provided the north
half of the proposed north side lots is donated for floodplain protection purposes
and provided a 5% cash parkland dedication is received, for the following reasons:
1. it is consistent with adjoining developments to the east and south; 2. develop-
ment is apparently possible within the constraints of floodplain restrictions; and 3.
the city's Open Space Committee declined purchase of this parcel, thus reasonable
use by the owner should be expected; and 4. tree removal to the greatest extent
possible will be controlled by the tree cutting ordinance.
Mr. Hughes questioned whether any development should be allowed north of the
Dovre Drive extension, and requested an opinion from the EQC. Mr. Lewis agreed.
Mr. Ray Drake of Rauenhorst Corporation requested the plat be approved as
originally proposed because "obviously, it is easier to sell a large lot than a
small lot." He added that Rauenhorst Corporation understands the watershed district's
5-28-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
20% fill limitation and is aware that the City of Edina would not allow any
development within the floodplain.
After further discussion, Mr. Hughes reiterated his request for an opinion from
the EQC, and moved consideration of the preliminary plat be postponed to the next
regular Planning Commission meeting (July 2, 1975). Mr. C. Johnson seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Following deliberation of the remaining items on the May 28, 1975, Planning
Commission agenda, Mr. Dunn, the City Engineer, asked that the Planning Commission
reconsider their action because the EQC, who met concurrently, had just approved
the subdivision as requested. He explained that the City hopes to obtain the
necessary easements and right of way and begin construction this summer of the Dovre
Drive extension and the bridge over Nine Mile Creek. The Planning Commission
generally agreed the request should be continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting for further discussion.
S-75-9 Nagengast Addition. Generally located south of the Crosstown Highway
and north of Doran Drive.
Mr. Luce stated the requested subdivision would include two outlots, three
single family lots, and vacation of a portion of Valley View Road; the street vacation
request is pending before the City Council at the present time. He recommended the
subdivision request be tabled until the Council has reached a decision because if the
street vacation is approved, the north lot line of proposed lot 1 could be moved
further north, thus enlarging that lot, and greater flexibility would be allowed in
locating houses on lots 1 and 3. He added that if the vacation is not approved, a
two lot plat would be more appropriate than the requested three lot plat because
lots 1 and 3, as they are presently proposed, do not meet the minimum lot depth
requirements.
Mr. Jerome Nagengast, the developer, stated the outcome of the street vacation
hearing would not affect the placement of a house on lot 3 because a 25 foot setback
is needed from a gas main located along the west side of Valley View Road. He
explained how houses designed in conformance with those in the neighborhood could
be placed on each lot without requiring setback variances, whether the north line
of lot l is adjusted or the street vacation is approved. Mr. Nagengast noted the
vacation of part of Valley View Road was requested because the adjacent neighbors
feel landscaping would help buffer them from the Crosstown Highway. He agreed,
however, after further discussion to move the north line of lot 1 approximately
six feet further north to meet the minimum lot depth requirements.
Mr. John P. Carroll, 5616 Doran Drive, stated a title question is pending
concerning proposed Outlot 1 because when he purchased his lot he was informed that
that land was included. He felt the subdivision should be continued until the title
question is decided.
Following further discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved the preliminary plat be
continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, pending City Council
action on the requested vacation of part of Valley View Road and for additional
information on the title conflict mentioned. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
5-28-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
S-75-10 Heather Hill. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and east of
Heather Lane.
Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting a two lot subdivision; the
south lot would be 28,629 square feet and would include the proponent's existing
house and garage with access to Vernon Avenue, and the north lot would be 15,000
square feet and would have access to Heather Lane. He recommended approval of the
proposed plat, contingent on a 5% cash ($1,250) parkland dedication.
After brief discussion, a motion to approve the requested two -lot subdivision
contingent on a 5% cash parkland dedication was made by Mr. Runyan and seconded by
Mr. Kremer. All voted aye. Motion carried.
S-75-11 Interlachen Hills 2nd Addition. Generally located south of the
Interlachen Hills apartments, east of County Road 18, and west of
Malibu Drive.
Mr. Luce stated the property in question as well as all of the land from the
existing Interlachen Hills apartments to the Edina Green (formerly George Reuter)
property is owned by Mr. Wallace Kenneth. In 1964 the parcel on the west side of
Lincoln Drive was rezoned to R-4 Multiple Residence District and the parcel on the
east side was rezoned to R-2 for double bungalows. Mr. Kenneth is presently request-
ing to subdivide part of his property to allow construction of 40 apartment units
and 6 double bungalows in conformance with the present zoning. Mr. Luce noted the
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District reviewed the proposed plat because the Nine Mile
Creek floodplain runs diagonally through the R-4 parcel; the total encroachment will
require less than the 20% maximum fill allowed because a large garage structure will
be elevated on pilings. Mr. Luce noted that although all of the double bungalow
lots would have frontage on Lincoln Drive, a private road and cul-de-sac is proposed
to serve lots 1, 2, and 3 to minimize the number of curb cuts. Mr. Luce
recommended approval of the requested subdivision of property, provided the proposed
plat is redrawn as two plats (i.e. Interlachen Hills 2nd and 3rd Additions) because
the parcels involved are physically separated by Lincoln Drive, and provided a deed
for 13,600 square feet of land at the southern extreme of Mr. Kenneth's property
(adjacent to Nine Mile Creek) is prepared and contributed to the City for park
purposes to satisfy the 5% parkland dedication requirement.
Mr. Luce stated the EQC has concluded that the request for a subdivision is
a 'planning matter and would not in itself affect the floodplain. They will', however,
react to the project at a later time when the requisite floodplain permits are
requested.
Reiterating that the land has already been rezoned, Mr. Luce presented site
plans for the apartment development and double bungalow lots, submitted by Mr.
Kenneth in preliminary form for the staff's information.
Mr. Victor Oliver, 6620 Parkwood Road, stated he and his neighbors are con-
cerned about the amount of traffic that would use Parkwood Road to cut through Park -
wood Knolls.
Mr. Wallace Kenneth stated that although he has owned the property for several
years, he has never developed it because he was promised a highway improvement in
1966, 1968, and 1969, which never happened. He stated he cooperated with the City
when the property was rezoned and agreed to R-2 zoning on the east side of Lincoln
Drive as a buffer for the single family homes. Mr. Kenneth stated he is requesting
5-28-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
subdivision of the property to permit construction of apartments and double bungalows
in conformance with the approved zoning and basic development scheme proposed years
ago; all of the zoning ordinance requirements would be met and no variances will be
requested.
In reply to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Kenneth clarified the foundation wall of the
buildings will be elevated one or two feet above the ground, but the buildings will
not be constructed on stilts as such. Lengthy discussion followed. Several
Planning Commission members felt the request should not be approved but should be
continued until the plats are separated and more detailed information is available.
Mr. Hughes objected to the proposed architecture for the apartment buildings, and
several members agreed that the double bungalow designs are inadequate and sub -
s
ub
standard, particularly in terms of the doorway and hallway widths, closets and
storage space, etc. Mr. Lewis summarized that they do not think the proposed double
bungalows measure up to the quality of R -2's in Edina.
Mr. G. Johnson moved the request be continued until the next Planning Commission
meeting, and suggested that Mr. Kenneth consider the comments made and review his
proposal. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion.
Mr. Kenneth requested the R-2 portion of the subdivision be approved because
the lot sizes and proposed dwelling units meet all of the zoning ordinance lot size,
unit size, setback, and other requirements, and that he be allowed to return later
in the evening with more detailed plans for the apartment project.
In response to several questions, Mr. Luce recommended approval of the subdivision
contingent on the elimination of Lot 1, Block 1, (the R-4 parcel west of Lincoln
Drive) and on receipt of a deed for a 5% land donation at the extreme south end of
Mr. Kenneth's property for parkland purposes.
After additional discussion, all voted aye to continue the request to July 2,
1975. Motion carried.
S-75-13 Iroquois Hills 6th Addition. Generally located north of Braemar
Park, south and west of Valley View Road, and east of County Road 18.
.AND
Z-75-5 Poppler Cardarelle, Inc. Generally located north of Braemar Park,
"east of County Road 18, and south and west of Valley View Road. R-1
Single Family Residence District to R-2 Multiple Residential District.
Mr. Luce stated the proponents are requesting to subdivide and rezone the
property in question for four double bungalow lots and one outlot, proposed to be
donated to the City. Denial was recommended for the following reasons:
1. Because Nine Mile Creek flows through the property, dedication of a 100
foot setback along both sides of the creek would be required, thus eliminating much
of the proposed development area.
2. The property is totally located within the Nine Mile Creek floodplain; thus,
according to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District's regulations, only 20% of the
site can be filled. In addition, the City floodplain ordinance requires that land
within a floodplain cannot be filled without an approved floodplain permit.
5-28-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 6
3. A temporary drive to the double bungalow lots is proposed via a utility
and driveway easement along the south property line because there is no street access
to the site at the present time. Although the proposed CR 18 detached frontage road
may provide public access in the future, the platting and rezoning requests would
appear to be premature until that public access becomes available. The property
was originally labelled an outlot because it does not have public access, and that
problem has not as yet been resolved.
4. The proposed rezoning from R=1 to R-2 would not conform with the Western
Edina Land Use Plan, which indicates this site should remain as single family zoning.
Mr. Frank Cardarelle, the developer, stated that Hennepin County has indicated
to him that the proposed lots could have access to the service road; until that service
road is constructed a private driveway can provide access to the lots from Valley
View Road. Stating he is not sold on the idea of double bungalows now and would be
happy with single family lots", Mr. Cardarelle requested the zoning and subdivision
proposals be continued to the next meeting for study.
After brief discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the rezoning and subdivision requests
be continued for study to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. G. Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Charles Parten, 7149 Valley View Road, indicated there is a great deal of
wildlife on the property in question, and the adjacent neighbors would like to have
that land preserved as open space forever. Mr. Luce responded that although this
site was not among those sites recently recommended for acquisition by the Open
Space Committee, a new state law would allow the City of Edina to purchase
the land as parkland and assess the cost to the abutting property owners. Mr.
Parten and Mr. Cardarelle agreed to investigate that possibility.
S-75-14 Victorsen's Timberview Addition. Generally located at the southwest
corner of the Crosstown. Highway and Gleason Road.
AND
Z-74-7 Folke Victorsen. Generally located at the southwest corner of the
Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. R-1 Single Family. Residence
District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District. FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL.
Mr. Luce noted Mr. Victorsen, the property owner and developer, is now
requesting approval of both a subdivision and the final development plans for
rezoning. He explained the four lot subdivision includes an exception parcel (Dr.
Glenn Lewis' lot at the top of the hill), a lot on Indian Hills Road (Mr. Victorsen's
house), a lot for the apartment building itself, and an outlot (the remainder of the
hill, -which would be dedicated to the City for open space purposes). Mr. Luce
presented a statistical data sheet and the final development plans for the proposed
apartment building. He recalled that after lengthy discussion at the April 7, 1975,
Council meeting, the Council granted concept approval for a 140 unit, five story
apartment building of Type 1 construction. Mr. Luce stated the final development
plans and the subdivision conform to that concept, and he would therefore recommend
approval contingent on the following: I. that the landscape plan include an increase
in the amount of shrubbery on the south side of the building and the number of
deciduous trees on the north side of the building; 2. that a snow fence be constructed
40
5-28-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 7
on the perimeter of the area to be disturbed so that accidental destruction of
vegetation will not occur during construction; and 3. that outlot A be dedicated
to the City of Edina for open space purposes. Mr. Luce stated that Mr. Victorsen
has agreed to those contingencies.
Mr. Kremer asked whether provision has been made for access to the Lewis
house on the top of the hill. Mr. Luce explained a private driveway easement
crosses the property and approval of the subdivision and dedication of the outlot
will not affect the status of that private easement.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Larsen, the architect, stated that the unit sizes
will range from 900 square feet for the one bedroom units to 1500 square feet for
the two bedroom and den units. The rents will range from $350/month for the one
bedroom units to $650-700/month for the three bedroom units.
Mr. Lee Huetmaker, 6429 Margaret's Lane, representing the Arrowhead Lake
Association, stated he has concluded that an apartment building is probably the
best use for the site but that the size of the property and the taxes warrant an
80-100 unit building rather than a 140 unit building. Further, the proposed
building is seven stories exposed, five stories of living units over two garage
levels, and the Council specifically approved a five story building, not a seven
story building. Mr. Luce responded that the Council was in favor of Type 1
construction and approved a five story building above a two story garage. Mr.
Arnold Schaefer of Cross View Lutheran Church stated he, too, was at the City
Council meeting, and his recollection is also that a five story building was
approved, not a seven story building. Mr. Luce stated the questions of land use,
density, traffic, height, etc. were discussed by the Council and approved as part
of the concept approval.
Following additional discussion, a motion to approve the subdivision and
final development plans for the Timberview project was made by Mr. G. Johnson and
seconded by Mr. C. Johnson. All voted.aye. Motion carried.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS: None.
V. Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae Nye, Secretary