Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 07-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1975 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, M. McDonald, and G V. Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner; Environmental Planner; F. S. Dean, C. E. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, Johnson. R. Dunn, City Engineer; G. Hughes, and L. Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the May 28, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion to approve the May 28, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes as written was made by Mr. C. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Runyan. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. LOT DIVISIONS: LD -75-4 Earl C. Sharpe. Lot 2, Sharpe BakkeAddition. 6600 Gleason Road. Mr. Luce stated the proponent is requesting to divide his single family lot into two 'parcels to create an additional buildable lot north of his existing house. The present lot is 42,820 square feet; if the division is approved as requested, the proponent's homesite would be 27,750 square feet and the new northerly lot would be 15,070 square feet. Mr. Luce noted that with the exception of the lot to be divided and the adjoining lot to the north (about 32,500 square feet), the lot sizes in the area vary from 10,800 to 14,000 square feet. Because the resulting lot sizes would be compatible with those in the neighborhood, Mr. Luce recommended approval of the requested division contingent on a 5% cash donation in lieu of land to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement for the additional buildable lot. After brief discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the lot division be approved as requested, subject to a 5% cash dedication ($375) in lieu of parkland. Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted,aye. Motion carried. LD -75-5 Jeffrey P. Gustafson/G.W. Pearson. Outlots B and C, Gleason Fifth Addition and Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason Fifth Addition. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and west of Gleason Road. Mr. Luce stated that two divisions and two subsequent combinations of properties within Gleason Fifth Addition are requested. He explained that Outlot C is proposed to be divided; the easterly portion would be combined with lot 2 and the westerly portion would be combined with lot 3. In addition, a 10 foot strip equal to the square footage of that westerly portion of Outlot C is proposed to be divided from the west side of lot 3 and added to Outlot B. The proponent will then pursue a land trade and further property combinations to make Outlot B a buildable lot and eventually have it rezoned for a double bungalow. Mr. Luce stated that although he has no objection to the anticipated results, he is concerned that the addition of 10 feet from lot 3 to Outlot B would make Outlot B the minimum size for a single family lot. If Outlot B of Gleason 5th Addition and Outlot B of Viking Hills 4th Addition, presently under separate owner- ship, are not eventually combined and rezoned as expected, the proponents could request that Outlot B of Gleason Fifth Addition be declared a buildable, although 7-2-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 undesirable, single family lot. He suggested that because all of the parcels are being modified by this request or are proposed to be modified in the future, further negotiations with the owner of Outlot B, Viking Hills 4th Addition, and a replat of part of Viking Hills 4th Addition and all of Gleason Fifth.Addition might be more appropriate. Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing the proponents, Mr. Jeffrey Gustafson and Mr. G. W. Pearson, explained that Mr. Pearson, who owns and occupies a home on Lot 2, has constructed a tennis court on the easterly portion of Outlot C; division of that outlot is therefore requested so the portion with the tennis court can be added to Mr. Pearson's lot (lot 2). Mr. Gustafson recalled that lot 3 was sold almost a year ago with a one year option allowing the west 10 feet of that lot to be traded for a piece of Outlot C of equivalent square footage; the necessary divisions of Outlot C and lot 3 are requested now while the proponents still have the right by option to swap those parcels. Mr. Gustafson further explained that the proponents own Outlots A and B of Gleason Fifth Addition, and, although Mr. Harliev Helle owns lot 11 and Outlot B of Viking Hills 4th Addition, he has indicated that he is not ready to discuss the purchase or trade of those outlots. There is, however, no intent to make Outlot B buildable for a single family house. Mr. Gustafson felt the proponents should not be required to replat the entire area at once because they are not in control of all of the lots and outlots,and it would be inappropriate and unfair to ask them to wait until Mr. Helle is ready to discuss the matter. After discussion regarding the assessed valuation of Outlot B, whether that outlot is or would be considered a buildable lot, and about an ultimate land swap with Mr. Helle, Mr. G. Johnson indicated he would contact Mr. Helle and discuss the matter with him in an attempt to initiate the necessary transfers of land and overall replatting. Mrs. McDonald moved the request be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. G. Johnson, who abstained. Motion carried. III. SUBDIVISIONS: S-75-8 Nine Mile North 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the Londonderry townhouse project, east of Lincoln Drive and Nine Mile Creek, and west of Londonderry Road (continued from 5-28-75). Mr. Luce recalled the proposed six lot single family subdivision was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting pending an opinion from the Environmental Quality Commission. He reported the EQC has since recommended the preliminary plat be approved as requested. Mr. Luce recalled the staff's earlier recommendation that the subdivision be approved, provided the north half of the lots along the north side of Dovre Drive extended are donated for floodplain protection purposes, and provided a 5% cash parkland dedication is received. Mr. Luce indicated, however, that it has since been brought to his attention that when Nine Mile North Addition was originally platted, land along Nine Mile Creek in excess of 5% of the total site was donated to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement; as a result, an additional cash donation should not be required in connection with the present request for subdivision. 7-2-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 Mr. Luce noted he would, however, continue to recommend that the north half of the north side lots be dedicated for maximum control to prevent possible future development within the floodplain. Mr. Ray Drake, representing the developer,. stated that Rauenhorst Corporation wants to retain ownership of the entire site because it is easier to sell a larger lot than a smaller lot. He indicated they do not intend to fill the north half of the north side lots or in any way infringe upon the city ordinances or watershed district regulations. Discussion followed regarding the possibility and effect of future improve- ments within the floodplain, the feasibility of attaching a deed restriction to the deeds for the north side lots to protect the floodplain, whether or not a cash donation should be required in addition to the prior dedication of parkland along the creek, and whether or not dedication of the north half.of the three lots north of Dovre Drive extended should be made a condition of the preliminary plat approval. Mr. Dean moved the proposed six -lot subdivision be approved, "with the present owner retaining title to the floodplain, subject to a total 5% cash parkland dedication, with credit being given for that land previously donated in excess of 5% of the total site (Nine Mile North Addition), and also subject to the appropriate agreement between the developer, city staff and city attorney on deed restrictions for the three north side lots for floodplain protection purposes." Mr. Dean clarified that an earlier parkland dedication of at least 5% of the total property of Nine Mile North Addition would eliminate the need for an additional cash donation. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. S-75-9 Nagengast Addition. Generally located north of Doran Drive and south of the Crosstown Highway. (continued from 5-28-75). Mr. Luce recalled the proposed three lot plat was continued from the last, Planning Commission meeting pending City Council action on the requested vacation of part of Valley View Road and for additional information in regard to a possible title conflict concerning Outlot 1. The City Council has subsequently approved the requested street vacation, providing additional square footage and allowing an adjustment of the north lot line of lot 1. As a result, all three lots now have an adequate lot depth and will enjoy greater flexibility in terms of the setback and other requirements. Mr. Luce recalled the concern of Mr. John P. Carroll, 5616 Doran Drive, regarding a possible title question on Outlot 1, but stated that no additional information has been brought to his attention. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the requested three -lot subdivision, contingent on a cash donation equal to 5% of the raw land value to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement. A motion to approve the preliminary plat of Nagengast Addition, contingent on a 5% cash parkland dedication, was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Runyan. All voted aye. 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. (continued from 5-28-75) AND 7-2-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 IV. REZONINGS: Z-75-5 Poppler Cardarelle Inc. (Iroquois Hills 6th Addition). Generally located north of Braemar Park, south and west of Valley view Road, and east of County Road 18. R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-2 Multiple Residence District. (continued from 5-28-75) Mr. Luce recalled the proponent's request to subdivide and rezone the property in question for four double bungalow lots and one outlot was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting, at the developer's request, for further study. Reports from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County have been received since that time. Hennepin County has indicated that all access for this property should be from Valley View Road, not from the future frontage road as proposed by the developer. Mr. Luce reiterated the staff's opinion that the sub- division and rezoning requests are premature until public access becomes available. He recalled his earlier recommendation of denial and reviewed the reasons for that recommendation. He reported the Environmental Quality Commission also recommended denial of the requested rezoning and subdivision, noting that "all lots are in the floodplain, substantial floodplain filling would be necessary, and public access to the property is inadequate". Mr. C. Johnson moved the preliminary plat of Iroquois Hills 6th Addition and the rezoning from R-1 to R-2 be denied for the reasons reviewed by the staff and listed in the minutes of the 5-28-75 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS: 2. Modification of Densities in Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Luce reported the City Council has from time .to time discussed the densities proposed by the comprehensive plans and has noted that the majority of rezoning requests .are for the maximum density shown. The Council has indicated their desire to reduce those densities and has asked for suggestions and direction from the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. It was generally agreed that reducing the maximum densities "across the board to 'x' units per acre" would not be a reasonable solution. Mr. Luce agreed to prepare a list of factors or criteria, such as the location of a site or certain characteristics of the site itself, for review at the next Planning Commission meeting which might be used by the developer to increase or decrease density accordingly. No action taken. 1. Wallace B. Kenneth Preliminary Plan Review. Mr. G. Johnson abstained from discussion regarding the Wallace B. Kenneth property and any development proposals. Mr. Luce recalled that Mr. Wallace Kenneth had requested approval at the 5-28-75 Planning Commission meeting of a preliminary plat (Interlachen Hills 2nd Addition) to allow the construction of a 40 unit apartment building and six double bungalows in conformance with the present zoning, granted in 1964. The Planning Commission, in continuing the request to the present meeting, encouraged Mr. Kenneth to review and resubmit his proposal in light of their comments and criticisms regarding the proposed architecture for the apartment buildings and the double bungalow designs. Mr. Kenneth, since that time, has retained Mr. Tom Stahl, an e 7-2-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5 architect, to assist him in formulating an overall development plan for his property. Mr. Luce explained that Mr. Stahl is requesting further direction from the Planning Commission "to try to establish some basic ground rules iinder which this development could be done". Mr. Stahl outlined the basic problems which must be addressed in attempting to develop the Kenneth property, as follows: first, the property is presently zoned so immediate development could be pursued if all of the city and watershed district criteria can be met; second is the traffic problem of that area and how development of the Kenneth property would affect the adjacent single family areas; third is the floodplain; and fourth would be County Road 18 and the elevated noise condition. Mr. Stahl presented graphics indicating the existing adjacent land use, streets and intersections, the creek and floodplain line, and the proposed County Road 18 construction. He presented three studies prepared by Mr. Kenneth and noted the "logical future park dedication on the south end of the property" and the possible R-1, R-2, R-4 and R-5 development areas. Discussion followed regarding the allowed density, the floodplain regulations, the proposed park and development areas, the availability of mortgage financing for a large, overall project, and the comparative elevations of Malibu Drive, County Road 18, and the floodplain. The Planning Commission suggested there be a voluntary or involuntary reduction in the total number of units permitted on the property, and that the density be contained as much as possible on the north portion. They requested that cross sections and elevations be prepared to determine how various building heights would compare to Malibu Drive and County Road 18. No further action was taken. VI. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary