Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 09-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, C. E. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, G. V. Johnson, Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland. Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner, Robert C. Dunn, City Engineer, and Lynnae Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the September 8, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion to approve the September 8, 1976, Planning Commission minutes as written and submitted was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. C. Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. SUBDIVISIONS: S-76-21 Scot Lewis Addition. Generally located west of Blake Road, south of Mendelssohn Lane, and north of Interlachen Boulevard (continued from 9-8-76). Mr. Luce recalled the requested two -lot single family subdivision was continued -for further study from the 9-8-76 Planning Commission meeting. He presented graphics illustrating the location of the site near a dangerous hill and curve on Blake Road. He also illustrated the requisite setbacks from the pond, Blake Road right-of-way, and side lot lines, which severely restrict the actual buildable lot area. Mr. Luce recalled a traffic report.from the City Traffic Engineer was requested by the Com- mission at their last meeting; that report, prepared by Fran Hoffman, indicates that there is a traffic problem in this area and that the greatest problem is caused by the lack of visibility from the site due to the Blake Road hill and curve. Mr. Luce concluded that the number of traffic conflicts on Blake Road would be.hilf of the po- tential number if development of the property as two lots is prohibited. He there- fore reaffirmed his earlier recommendation that the requested two lot subdivision be denied for the following reasons: 1. Access onto Blake Road is dangerous because of the hill and curve, and visibility is extremely limited. 2. Because of the dangerous condition at the intersection, the number of automobile trips from driveways should be limited. If there is only one house on the property, the potential number of traffic conflicts would be reduced in half. 3. The developable portion of this property is extremely limited by the pond, the requisite setbacks, and the considerable grade. Because the develop- able portion is not extremely large, the property would not be under- developed if it were developed as one lot. Mr. Lewis suggested the grade of Blake Road at the hill north of the site be lowered. Mr. Dunn indicated that Blake Road is a county road and that Hennepin County might consider lowering the hill as a maintenance project. Mr. Dunn suggested, however, that the visibility problem from this, site, would be improved more by removal of a hedge across the street than by changing the grade on Blake Road. He added that if two homesites are allowed, Hennepin County agrees that egress from the site should be limited to a joint driveway at the property line with turn -around space 9-29-76 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 2 so vehicles would not have to be backed out onto Blake Road. Mr. Terry Jacobson, the architect, noted the graphics presented are not meant to illustrate the actual house locations planned; they simply illustrate there is sufficient buildable lot area to allow two houses and a common drive with turn -around space. (Mr. G. Johnson arrived.) Considerable discussion followed regarding the amount.of buildable lot area and the traffic and visibility problems near the site. Mr. Hughes then moved the requested subdivision be denied in light of the existing and potential traffic hazards, the traffic engineer's report, and the staff's negative recommendation. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. G. Johnson, who abstained. Motion carried. S-76-24 LaPepiniere Addition. Generally located south of, West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road, north of the future Amundson Avenue extension. Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting to plat the 3/4 acre site in question into one lot for mortgage and tax purposes. The north half of the future extension of Amundson Avenue and the west half of Cahill Road would be dedicated to the City as a result of the proposed platting. A $1500 parkland dedication fee will also be required. Mr. Luce noted the property was zoned R-3 Multiple Residential District several years ago and utilities are available to serve the site should future development occur. He stated he has urged all of the property owners in this area to join in a single plat so the land west of Amundson Avenue and south of Cahill School can be acquired by the City via a parkland dedication from the plat. Mr. Luce recommended the proposed plat be approved, contingent on the sub- mission of a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $1500.00. Discussion followed regarding future development of Amundson Avenue and the remaining vacant properties in this area. In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Luce indicated that approval of the proposed plat would not preclude.a single development on all of the remaining vacant parcels. Mrs. McDonald moved the preliminary plat of LaPepiniere Addition be approved, subject to submission of a parkland dedication fee in lieu of land. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. S-76-23 Woodbury Park Townhomes First Addition. Generally located at the southeast corner of France Avenue and West 55th Street. AND Z-76-13 Reese/Rova Associates (The Woodbury Company). Generally located at southeast corner of France Avenue and West 55th Street. R-1 Single Family Residence District and R-2 Multiple Family Residence District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. Mr. Luce stated the proponents are requesting a subdivision and rezoning to PRD -2 to allow development of nine townhouse units on this property. The westerly portion of the site is presently zoned R-2, and the remainder is zoned R-1. The 9-29-76 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 3 single family home directly west of the site on the south side of W. 55th Street is not included in the development proposal. He stated that aldough there have been several informal requests for office or commercial zoning, the staff has indicated that any development of this site should be a low residential usage compatible with the ad- jacent land uses. Mr. Luce presented site plan, floor plan, and elevation graphics illustrating the proposed project and stated that no variances would be required. Regarding the subdivision, Mr. Luce noted that utilities are available from France Avenue if public water service is not installed in W. 55th Street before construction is scheduled to begin. He noted also that a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $2500 will be required. Mr. Luce indicated the staff is in favor of the proposal because the property abuts France Avenue and a cemetery, and part of the land is already zoned R-2 Multiple Residential District. He explained the present and proposed zoning districts and rezoning process for the benefit of the audience. Approval of the subdivision and rezoning was recommended for the reasons discussed, contingent on payment of a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $2500.00. Mr. Charles Paulus of 3705 Wbst 55th Street, objected that the three units along West 55th Street were designed to face the central court area and back onto West 55th Street. He felt the requested zoning and development proposal were in- consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Ken Borden, 3701 West 54th Street, objected to the proposal because he felt "traffic would go through the residential neighborhood to 54th Street for access to France Avenue." He was also opposed to the development of nine town- house units in what has traditionally been a single family neighborhood. Discussion followed regarding the property's development potential under the present zoning, access to the property, and the anticipated traffic patterns on France Avenue, West 54th and West 55th Streets. Mrs. Janie Paulus, 3705 West 55th Street, urged that the proposal be rejected because the increased traffic and parking lots would create a hazard for children, the density is excessive, and the berms, roofs, and patio walls would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. She presented a petition signed by approximately 85 homeowners opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Frank Reese, the architect, and Dan Christenson, the builder, were present. Mr. Reese stated the berms will be below the floor level of the homes on 55th Street and will provide protection and privacy from France as well as a place to store fill. He explained that all of the units will be one-story with two bedrooms and two baths, and are designed to appeal to older couples with no children. He des- cribed the proposed exterior treatment and landscaping. Mr. Robert Stanek, 3820 W. 55th Street, indicated he objects primarily from a traffic standpoint. After lengthy discussion, Mr. Lewis suggested the developers and neighborhood representatives meet and attempt to work out a satisfactory development solution. Mrs. Paulus stated "the neighbors don't have anything to discuss with the developers because we are opposed to the rezoning. We want only single family homes with'a double bungalow on France Avenue." She added the neighbors would agree only to a development which would conform to the present zoning. 9-29-76 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 4 Mr. Bill Krubsack, 3800 West 55th Street, volunteered to meet with the developers "with the background that I am strongly opposed to a rezoning of any kind." Mr. Runyan moved the requested rezoning and subdivision be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to give the developers and neighborhood re- presentatives an opportunity to meet and discuss the present proposal and alternative developments. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. G. Johnson, who abstained from the discussion as well as the vote. Motion carried. Mr. Luce announced the next Planning Commission meeting would be held October 27, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council chambers. IV. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Luce explained the proposed ordinance amendments would require that all properties to be rezoned or subdivided be posted with a simple, uniform sign.. He stated the present ordinance requires a lengthy message which is difficult to read and requires that meeting dates, which are subject to change, be posted. The proposed ordinance would require a simplified sign that would eliminate confusion and solve several administrative and enforcement problems. Mrs. McClelland and Mrs. McDonald felt the Planning Department telephone number should be posted on the sign in addition to the telephone number of the develope After additional discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved the proposed subdivision and zoning sign ordinance amendments be approved, provided the Planning Department telephone number is incorporated into the sign message. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Ordinance amendment providing for senior citizen housing. Mr. Luce recalled the proposed ordinance was prepared at the City Council's request for presentation at their October 4 meeting. The ordinance would create °a zoning classification and standards for subsidized apartment buildings designed and constructed specifically for the elderly. The proposed zoning districts SR -3, SR -4, and SR -S, would allow reduced unit size and lot area requirements and fewer parking stalls than those required in the present multiple residential districts. Mr. Luce noted that developments of this nature have been permitted in the past by granting various and substantial variances for unit size, parking, lot area per dwelling unit, etc. Mr. Luce presented a chart comparing the present ordinance with the reduced ordinance regulations allowed for existing senior citizen apartment buildings, via various variances. He also presented a chart which compared the proposed ordinance requirements with similar ordinances of other suburbs. Regarding the proposed Rainbow Management building at 51st and France, Mr. Luce noted that setback and lot coverage variances would still be required to accommodate that project. He noted that only projects subsidized by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, HUD, or the HRA could be constructed in these districts. If 9-29-76 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 5 Mr. Henry Haverstock, Jr., attorney representing several Gorgas Avenue residents and residents of the Lanterns condominiums, felt proposed standards for Edina should not be compared with the standards of other suburban communities. He added that "while we all recognized a legitimate need for housing for the elderly, that type of housing should not be allowed at the expense of other property values in an area." He urged that the City dispose of the Rainbow proposal before taking action on an ordinance establishing standards for housing of that type. He further urged that an impartial study be conducted which is not motivated by a pending specific proposal. The commission generally agreed that the Rainbow proposal should have no bearing on the discussion or consideration of the proposed ordinance amend- ment. After brief discussion regarding the proposed parking regulations and the definition of elderly, Mr. Hughes moved that consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment be continued to the next meeting for further study, and that the City Council be requested to postpone any Council action until the Commission has had an opportunity to thoroughly consider the standards being established. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3. Edina Bicentennial Commission Questionnaire. The Commission generally agreed the Bicentennial Commission questionnaire was not applicable to the Planning Commission. No'action was taken. 4. Mr. Luce cautioned the Commissioners not to meet with developers or neighbors at a specific project site because that action could be interpreted to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. 5. Metropolitan Mandatory Planning Act. Mr. Luce reported that representatives of the Metropolitan Council will be appearing at a future Planning Commission meeting to document the plans which must be completed prior to 1980 in order for the City of Edina to conform with the Metropolitan Mandatory Planning Act. V. ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary