Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 09-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1975 EDINA CITY HALL. Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D. T. Runyan, G. V. Johnson, C. E. Johnson, F. S. Dean, M. McDonald, and R. E. Kremer. Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner; Robert C. Dunn, City Engineer; and Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary I. Approval of the July 30, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. Runyan moved the July 30, 1975, Planning Commission minutes be approved as written and submitted. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. PUBLIC HEARING on Clarification of Allowed Densities in the South, Southwest and Western Edina Plan Areas. Mr. Luce recalled that at the 7-30-75 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended the Council approve a formula for reducing the allowed multi- family densities in comprehensively planned areas of Edina,'prepared by the staff at the Council's direction and in response to discussion held at the 7-2-75 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission indicated, however, that that formula should not apply to the South Edina Plan because that plan already contains extensive traffic and land use controls and the land in that plan area has no significant environmental characteristics. Mr. Luce indicated that at their last meeting the City Council asked that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing pursuant to state statutes to formally amend the comprehensive plans, including the South Edina Plan, to reflect that density clarification. Mr. Luce presented and read the proposed staff formula for reducing densities which provides that: all multiple family developments with more than two units per structure shall be zoned PRD; the density of any parcel shall not be greater than that allowed by the comprehensive plan; and the maximum allowed density shall be reduced cumulatively up to 50% according to certain measurable site characteristics such as the percentage of slopes, the proximity to an accessible freeway interchange and residential areas, and the amount of land below an established high water mark or within or in proximity to a flood plain or wetland. He noted this formula would not affect land which is already zoned. Mr. Luce stated that letters were received from Mr. John Hedberg of Hedberg and Sons and from Mr. Bill Howard, spokesman of the Southwest Edina Homeowners Association, in response to the notice of public hearing mailed to the affected homeowner's associations and to the owners of property of 5 acres or more. Mr. Hedberg asked that the South Edina Plan be excluded from this clarification, and Mr. Howard indicated he is in favor of the proposal and that he, too, had contacted the other homeowner's associations as well as the residents in his neighborhood. Emphasizing that the deductions illustrated are purely estimates and are by no means factual, Mr. Luce reviewed a chart identifying the affect of the proposed density formula on four sites chosen for illustrative purposes. He noted that a pending law suit was brought by Karl Krahl and the Gittleman Corporation against the City of Edina, and the plaintiffs have requested an injunction prohibiting Council action on the proposed density clarification. 9-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 Mr. Rick Davies (5412 Malibu Drive), representing the Parkwood Knolls/ Malibu Heights Homeowners Association, and Mrs. Dick Seaberg, representing the Viking Hills Homeowners Association, stated they support the adoption of the staff formula for reducing densities. Mr. Bill Howard (5808 Dewey Hill Road), spokesman for the Southwest Edina Homeowners Association, agreed, adding that he believes the prospects for reducing traffic in Southwest Edina will be greatly enhanced if the proposed density clarification is approved and the comprehensive plans amended. Discussion followed. In reply to Mr. H. G. Haglund, Mr. Luce indicated he could not guarantee a reduction in taxes'if the proposed density clarification is adopted and the comprehensive plans are amended; however, any change in market value would be reflected by the City Assessor and may adjust the taxes. Mr. William Dale stated he has owned a 1/3 interest in the_"Lowry Hill" property for 15 years. He recalled that "about two years ago we had a sale for the property in which a developer was going to build a three and four story wood frame building with the appropriate number of units on it but it would cover quite a bit of ground. That was passed by the Council but the money crunch came in and the developer wasn't able to go ahead on it. Now we have a developer who wants to develop it at the allowed number of units in the plan, but in place of four stories wants to build five stories of concrete and steel; it would cover 24 percent of the land but the rest would be open space." He stated he has been paying taxes on the property for 15 years.. "Now the City wants to cut the density in half and'the value is determined by the density allowed. I don't agree with this at all and I am protesting this action." Mr. Harvey Hansen stated that he purchased a small parcel of land immediately adjacent to the Braemar Oaks apartments based on the density allowed in the South- west Edina Plan and based on his experience with Braemar Oaks. He commented "for the record" that someone in a similar position may eventually cost the city a great deal of money in legal fees. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Runyan stated they are in favor of the proposed density clarification. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Lewis noted that the Planning Commission has been urging developers to reduce density for years. Mr. Runyan noted he supports the proposal because it responds to the wishes of a great many residents of Edina. Mr. Hughes moved the Planning Commission recommend the amendment of the Western Edina Plan and Southwest Edina Plan to incorporate the proposed density clarification formula, and, further, that the Planning Commission recommend the South Edina Plan not be amended because traffic and land use controls are already an integral part of that plan. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. LOT DIVISIONS: 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. Continued from 7-2-75 & 7-30-75. Mr. Luce reviewed the requested lot divisions and combinations involving two lots and two outlots in Gleason Fifth Addition. He recalled this matter was 9-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 discussed at the 7-2-75 and 7-30-75 Planning Commission meetings, and was continued pending the outcome of arbitration to determine the owner of Outlot B, Viking Hills 4th Addition. Mr. Luce reported that the arbitration hearing, originally scheduled for August 25th, was rescheduled for September 5th. He stated the staff is still concerned that the addition of 10 feet (from lot 3) to Outlot B, Gleason Fifth Addition, would provide the minimum square footage needed to create an extremely undesirable single family lot. He recommended the requested divisions be further continued to the 9-24-75 Planning Commission meeting, by which date an arbitration report should be available. Mr. Luce stated that letters from Mr. Glen Nybeck (representing Mr. Harliev Belle) and from Mr. Jeff Gustafson (the proponent) have been received; Mr. Nybeck asked that the request be postponed until the ownership of Outlot B, Viking Hills 4th Addition, has been determined, and Mr. Gustafson asked that there be no further delays and that his request be approved. Mr. Jeff Gustafson, the proponent, requested a decision be made at that meeting because: in his opinion the present request has no bearing on any future land trade with Mr. Helle and Mr. Krahl; the present owner of Lot 3 can cancel his option for the west 10 feet of that lot at anytime at will; no one contacted him in response to his phone calls and letters regarding the details of a land trade or to inform him that the arbitration hearing was postponed and rescheduled; and, if the request is granted, Outlot B (Gleason Fifth -Addition) would still be an unbuildable outlot because it would not have adequate lot depth. He reiterated that "we are not asking anything of the owners to be determined. We are just asking to include the tennis court on the appropriate lot, and the owner of Lot 3 wants to know how wide his lot is. He emphasized that if he is not able to acquire the west 10 feet of Lot 3, it will be impossible to accomplish the future lot divisions and combinations needed to provide adequate square footage for R-2 zoning for the three lots.directly west on Vernon Avenue. After discussion, Mr. Kremer moved the request be continued again to the next Planning Commission meeting (9-24-74), as the results of arbitration to determine the ownership of Outlot B, Viking Hills 4th Addition, will not be available until after the hearing on September 5th. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye, except Mr. G. Johnson, who abstained. Motion carried. LD -75-8 David J. DeMarsh. Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason Third Addition.. 6422-24 Vernon Avenue. Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting to divide an existing double bungalow along the common wall. He recommended approval, as the request is in line with city policy allowing the division of double bungalows for ownership purposes if there are separate sewer and water connections. Mrs. McDonald moved the requested division be approved as recommended, and Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion.carried. LD -75-9 V_olney T. DeRemer. Lots 5 and 6, Gunnar Johnson's Second Rearrangement of Rolling Green. 5808 Mait Lane. Mr. Luce explained the proposed lot divisions would reorient lots 5 and 6 to face in a north/south direction; the lots presently face in an east/west direction 9-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 and a house has been constructed on lot 6. He recommended the divisions be approved, as no additional buildable lots would be created and the request meets all of the subdivision regulations. After brief discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the requested lot divisions be approved as recommended. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. REZONINGS: Z-75-7 City of Edina for Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Generally located east of County Road 18, north of the Edina West condominiums and south of Fabri-Tek. PRD -3 Planned Residential District to R-1 Single Family Residence District. (Roushar Square) Mr. Luce recalled the property in question was originally platted as Roushar Square and rezoned in 1973 to PRD -3; the owner/developer paid all of the fees required at that time, including a $12,000 parkland dedication fee. Mr. Luce presented a letter (dated 6-4-75) from the Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, fee owner of the property, and a letter (dated 6-23-75) from the First Wisconsin National Bank, the mortgagee, indicating their desire to relinquish all rights, title and interest in the zoning and platting of Roushar Square and requesting the parkland dedication fee be refunded. Mr. Luce explained the city attorney has asked that the Planning Commission and Council pursue the usual rezoning procedure to return the zoning of the property to R-1 Single Family Residence District. He noted that on August 18, 1975, the Council adopted a resolution rescinding the plat of Roushar Square. In reply to Mr. G. Johnson, Mr — Luce stated the First Wisconsin National Bank has been informed that in the future the density allowed will probably be less and the costs involved, including the parkland dedication fee, will probably be greater. Following discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the property in question be rezoned as requested from PRD -3 to R-1. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Luce noted the Western Edina Plan indicates this parcel may be developed as multiple residential or planned industrial. He suggested the comprehensive -Plan be amended to allow only multiple residential development, since many people have purchased units in Edina West and other projects in close proximity to this site with reliance on that multiple residential zoning. He agreed to prepare an amendment to the Western Edina Plan for consideration at the 9-24-75 Planning Commission meeting. No further action was taken. V. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Special Flood Plain Permit - Dr. William O'Hanlon, 6836 Sally Lane. Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting to construct a swimming pool in his rear yard, which is located entirely within the Nine Mile Creek floodplain. 9-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5 He stated he would concur with the recommendation of the environmental planner, the Environmental Quality Commission, and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District that a special floodplain permit be granted with the following conditions to indicate that the City will not be responsible for any undesirable ground water effects which could damage the pool, cause flooding, or introduce sediment and other debris into the pool: 1. A grading permit must be obtained from the Watershed District. 2. Any fencing surrounding the pool must be of a fence fabric having a mesh dimension of at least two inches to allow water flowage. 3. The City*of Edina assumes no responsibility regarding damage to the structure as a result of flooding or other floodplain related effects. Mr. G. Johnson suggested the City and proponent enter into a legal agreement to protect the City against any future law suits. After brief discussion, Mr. Kremer moved the requested special floodplain permit be granted, subject to the stipulations listed by the staff and with the additional stipulation that this matter be referred to the City Attorney. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Mr. Luce updated the Commission on the 50th and France redevelopment project, including the ramp construction, relocation of the Union 76 station tenants, the Lunds store remodeling, and the liquor store site. No action taken. VI. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary