Loading...
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