HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 03-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1977, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL
I. Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Gordon V. Johnson, David T. Runyan,
Clifford E. Johnson, Richard E. Kremer, Mary McDonald, and
Helen McClelland.
II.
Minutes .
Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner, Robert Dunn, City Engineer, and
Nancy Rust, Secretary.
Approval of the March 2, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes.
Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the March 2, 1977, Planning Commission
Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
III. New Business:
Lot Division E. B. and J. C. Haedecke. Lot 18, Block 6, LaBuena Vista.
LD -77-7 5524 West 70th Street.
Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting to divide the south 80 feet
from the lot in question, thus retaining a 95 -foot lot for the existing house and
creating an 80 -foot lot which afronts and has access to Hillside Lane. He explained the property is located in the LaBuena Vista Subdivision whichr until recently,
had not had a division within that area. In referring to the location map, Mr.
Luce explained the houses west of the proposed division are set -back 40-160 feet
from 70th Street because of the steep slope, and many obtain their access from an alley
way behind their homes. He further indicated the proposed house could not maintain
that established setback from 70th Street. Mr. Luce said staff has looked at this
request from two perspectives. First, if approval is granted, it is their opinion
that the division line should be moved north to allow the proposed lot the largest
possible setback. Staff would recommend the new lot be 90 X 124 feet and the exist-
ing lot 85 X 124 feet to allow an additional 10 foot setback from 70th Street.
Also, Mr. Luce recommended that, if approved, a parkland dedication in the amount
of $300.00 be dedicated to the City. The other perspective was on the basis of
denial, wherein denial could be on the basis of setback problems and, in some cases,
lot size. However, it should be recognized that across the street there is a lot
measuring 10,560 feet which is similar in size to the proposed lots which average
10,850 square feet. It may also be felt by the Commission that the prior LaBuena
Vista subdivision was an exception and had a unique situation in that it was adja-
cent to Nine Mile Creek and located at the edge of the LaBuena Vista Subdivision
and across the street from smaller lots. The proponent is present and pointed
out that the houses immediately west of the proposed lot division do not have analley,
and that this lot is the only one in LaBuena Vista which can be divided because he
had originally platted the subdivision. He said the present house on the lot was
the original farm house and he would like to build a one-story home in front of the
lot. He added he has had no objections from neighbors.
In response to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Luce said the setback on the east side of
Hillside Lane is 30 feet back from the right-of-way line, and that the primary
reason for the large setback is the steep slope. The proponent said he could have a
prospectus drawn of the proposed house if the Commission wished because of the
numerous questions by the Commission regarding his plans. He asked if they could
table the request for two months. Mr. Runyan moved the request be tabled turtil the
June 1, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
Edina Planning Commission Minutes of 3/30/77, Page 2
2. Lot Division Roy W. Tompkins. Lots 7 and 8, Griffis Subdivision of
LD -77-8 Block 18, Mendelssohn. Generally located at 527 and
529 Arthur Street.
Mr. Luce explained the general location of the request and presented a .
graphic which illustrated the existing condition. He said the lot was originally
platted as two separate 50 -foot lots but for tax purposes, they were combined into
one 100 -foot lot. The proponent is now requesting to divide the present lot into
the two original lots. Mr. Luce noted the lots would not meet the minimum width
of 75 feet established by the Zoning ordinance; however, it should be noted that the
lots on the same side of Arthur Street are primarily 50 -foot lots but lots on the
other side are generally larger, consisting of some 100 -foot lots which have never
been divided. Staff recommended approval of the lot -division contingent on the
cash parkland dedication in the amount of $200.00. The proponent was present.
Mr. Lewis felt the proponent should be allowed to divide the. lot into two
50 -foot lots, as it was originally platted. Mr. Robert Bonnett, 6501 Waterman
Avenue, said the entire neighborhood was now completely, developed with the exception
of Lots 7 and 8 and that recently Mr. Roy Tompkins, the proponent, developed Lots
9, 10, 11, and 12 to the south of the property. Mr. Bonnett took issue with the
statement that the majority of homes are built on 50 -foot lots in that many lots
were 100 -foot lots. He emphasized the proposed lot division does not meet the 75 -
foot minimum required. Mr. Luce said the majority of the lots are 50 feet wide but
where the road is vacated there is a 75 -foot lot. To clarify the parkland dedication
procedure, Mr. Luce said the amount of the parkland dedication is determined from
the raw land value, which is very much different from what someone would purchase the
lot for, as it is considered without the utility services, etc. Mr. Bonnett con-
tinued that the lot sizes on the other side of the street are generally 9,000 square
feet and the proposal includes 7,250 foot square lots. Mr. George Gould, 6516
Waterman Avenue, also expressed his objection to the proposal, as did Richard DeLeo,
609 Waterman Circle. After lengthy discussion, Mr. Kremer moved for denial of the
proposed lot division because the lots would not meet the minimum square footage
requirement under; the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Runyan seconded. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
3. Lot Division Gilbert H. Feig. Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Shores and
LD -77-9 the North 6 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Killarney Shores.
Generally located at 5900-02 Killarney Lane.
Mr. Luce stated the proponent is requesting to divide the property in
question down the common wall of a double bungalow presently under construction
on the lot to allow separate ownership of each unit. Noting that several
other double bungalows in the City have been divided in this manner, Mr. Luce
recommended approval of the requested division contingent upon payment of an
additional sewer and water connection charge.
Mr. G. Johnson moved the requested division be approved contingent on
payment of an additional sewer and water connection charge. Mr. C. Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
3-30-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 3
4. Rezoning Paul G. Blumer. Lot 2, Block 5, McCauley Heights 3rd
Z-77-7 Addition. Located at the southeast corner of McCauley
Trail and Indian Hills Road. R-2 Multiple Residence Dis-
trict to R-1 Single Family Residence District.
Mr. Luce explained the general location of the proposed rezoning and said
the proponent is requesting to rezone the lot from R-2 Multiple Residence District
to R-1 Single Family Residence District. He said the adjacent lots are single
family and the proposed house located at the corner of McCauley Road and Indian
Hills Road would face Indian Hills Road. It is a large lot and a buffer could not
be accomplished on the lot. Staff recommended approval of the proposed rezoning,
.but stated the neighborhood should be aware that, if not built on, this lot could
be rezoned back to the maximum land use of R-2 as shown on the Western Edina Land
Use Plan. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the proposed rezoning, and Mrs.
McDonald seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
5. Subdivision Muir Woods 2nd Addition. C. L. Fraser and M. Weegman. Part
S-77-4 of Lot 1, Block 1, Muir Woods. Generally located south of
Paiute Pass and east of Comanche Court.
and
Subdivision Muir Woods 3rd Addition. C. L. Fraser and M. Weegman.
S-77-5 Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Muir Woods. Generally located east
of Comanche Court along Valley View Road.
Mr. .Luce explained he was going to present the two requests together because
they were made by the same proponent. He presented numerous petitions and letters
to the Planning Commission from various neigh]Dors indicating their objections.
He explained two subdivisions are requested because the properties are separate
tracts of land. The first request, Muir Woods 3rd Addition, is located on Valley
View Road and the proponent is requesting to divide the site into two single family
lots. The second parcel, Muir Woods 2nd Addition, is located south of Paiute Pass
and east of Comanche Court. The proponent is requesting to divide that site into
two single family lots with an access drive onto Valley View Road; thus, if the
request is approved, rezoning to PRD -1 will be necessary to allow for this drive
with PRD -1 allowing only for single family lots. The proposed drive would be
20 feet wide and would have a small turn -a -round. Mr. Luce indicated the area is
heavily wooded and the topography is with steep slopes. The Engineering Department
had reviewed the request and whether drive would be possible,. and it was their
impression, and that of the staff, that the proposed turn -a -round would be too limited
for two homesites. Therefore, staff recommended the proposed Muir Woods 2nd Addition
not be approved because of the access drive. Mr. Luce further recommended that Muir
Woods 3rd Addition, which would have access directly onto Valley View Road, be
approved for the following reasons:
1. The use is consistent with the Western Edina Plan.
2. The property is now two separate tracts of land which are proposed to be divided
into three tracts of land and would be nearly twice as large as the surrounding
lots. The lots sizes are, however, appropriate for. .this hilly and wooded area.
3. Access to the proposed 2nd Addition for two lots is unacceptable in that there
is not room to turn around without entering onto private property.
3-30-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 4
Approval of Muir Woods 3rd Addition should be contingent upon:
1. That the unplatted tract herein identified as Muir Woods 2nd Addition be
incorporated into Muir Woods 3rd Addition as a single lot.
2. That prior to any development of the site, a tree removal permit be received.
3. That prior to any grading on the site, a grading permit be received.
4. Parkland Dedication be required prior to final plat approval.
Mr. Roger Stageberg, 6609 Paiute Pass, asked if lots in the 2nd Addition
could be appropriately serviced by the 20 -foot wide access drive. Mr. Luce
responded that the same type of drive exists in several other areas and that
it was more than adequate for one homesite. He noted that approximately a 10 -
foot strip of tax delinquent land owned by the County adjacent to the property
could be purchased by the proponent to widen the -drive to 30 feet. Mr. Stageberg
said he wished to present the views of the neighbors and would address himself
primarily to the 2nd Addition; however, many of the same arguments- are also
applicable to the 3rd Addition. He said there was a restrictive covenant which
said no lot in Muir Woods Subdivision could be subdivided and thus people of • l
Muir Woods had a legal right to prevent the two subdivisions. He also said the
adjacent property owner, Dr. Martin Peper, was not able to attend the:meeting.,
as he was out of town, but asked him to say that he, as owner of Lot 1, Block'l,
Muir Woods, did not wish to waive his rights under the restrictive covenant as
written in May, 1958, by George W. Harsh, in which a restriction is provided
for subdivision of Lot 1. He said the surrounding property owners had adequately
expressed their opinions in letters and petitions, and he said that when he looked
at the plat maps at Hennepin County the lot was not in existence and he thus
did not realize such a lot existed. He emphasized that the neighbors would have
a driveway in their backyards. Mr. Luce said that the driveway would be
present even if only one lot existed. Mr. Stageberg continued that the driveway
would cause problems in fire protection because of its narrowness. He felt
the road would also cause problems with water drainage because of the steep slope
as water will run off the slope into the _backyards of the neighbors.
Mr. Luce clarified that the neighbors should be made aware that only a court
of law or all the neighbors signing the declaration of covenants and restrictions
can modify those restrictions and that the Planning Commission cannot modify
or recognize them and must act independently from them. He said, however, that
the Planning Commission has held over requests when litigation was pending.
He also said that while the lot may not have shown on Hennepin County's plat
map, they have recognized this division since 1965. Mr. Dunn, the City Engineer,
said tree removal for the driveway may be a problem, but he reassured the neighbors
that the proponents would fill the driveway correctly and it may even result in
an improved drainage situation. Mr. Luce said the proponent has a right to build
on the site, thus it would be very difficult to deny a building permit. in re-
sponse to Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. Luce said the Commission could hold over or deny
the proposed plat of Muir Woods 2nd Addition and require that it be a maximum
of three lots in combination of the two plats. Mr. Stageberg recommended there
be a formal report from the Fire Department as to the accessibility of the
proposed home on the lot referred to as Muir Woods 2nd Addition.
3-30-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 5
Mr. Kremer said one alternate possibility to prevent the development of
this property would be for the owner to sell it to the surrounding property
owners and they could keep it as parkland. He asked the proponent if he
had explored this possibility, and the proponent responded that he had not but
felt it was a good one. The neighbors generally agreed and decided to pursue
it further. Mr. C. Johnson moved for approval of Muir Woods 3rd Addition
with the stipulations stated in the staff report and as listed by the staff,
and recommended the Commission hold over the Muir Woods 2nd Addition until the
April 19, 1977, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. G. Johnson seconded. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
7. Rezoning Roger Findell. Part of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21.
Z-77-8 Generally located west of Cahill Road, north and south of
Amundson Avenue (extended). R-1 Single Family Residence Dis-
trict and R-3 Multiple Residence District to PRD -3 Planned
Residence District.
Mr. Luce presented the location of the area proposed to be rezoned and said
the Planning Commission and City Council had recently approved a subdivision
of this same site and the developer had dedicated Outlot B for parkland purposes.
The proponent is not proposing to rezone the site from R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3,
which allows townhouses and apartments. Mr. Luce presented the development
plans and graphics identifying the topography of the site. He said 57 of the 80
trees on the site would be retained and the grading would be limited. Mr. Luce
said the proposed apartment buildings will be two-story buildings with sloped
roofs, and they will be of the same character and height as the townhouses and
will look residential in character. There are 40 apartment units proposed for
the south side and 38 townhouses on the' north side, with the extension of
Amundson Road as a division line. According to past density calculations,
the developer is allowed 56 units. According to present staff calculations,
the developer is allowed 63 units. The developer is requesting approval of
78 units on -the site, which would allow for 12 units per acre. He said the pro-
posed development reflects the topography; the apartment buildings would be
located on the flat land of 2 acres, and the townhouses would be located on
sloped land of more than 4 acres. The only trees proposed to be removed are
those for placement of buildings and roadways. After reviewing the proposal,
staff decided to recommend approval of the request subject to the following:
1. That an easement is submitted to the City for travel across that private ease-
ment portion of the access to the northern townhouse site.
2. That adequate final development plans be submitted.
The reasons for this recommendation are:.
1. The proposal is in conformance with the Southwest Edina Plan.
2. The proposal minimizes the removal of trees on the site, as well as distur-
bance to the steep slopes.
3. An adequate subdivision has been approved by dedicating 36 percent of the land
to the City.
3-30-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 6
Mr. C. Johnson said the Environmental Quality Commission had recommended
approval of the request with the submission of an erosion control plan. Mrs.
McDonald was concerned about the density. Mr. Luce said the density adjustment
formula was to be used as a guideline and variations from it could occur due to
topography, as in this situation wherein the flat land enables more development
and the sloped portion of the site, less. Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the
proposed rezoning with the contingencies stated by the staff and with the sub-
mission of an erosion control plan. Mrs. McDonald seconded. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
8. Rezoning Z-77-9 Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located south of
Subdivision` Olinger Boulevard and west of Tracy Avenue. PRD -1
S-77-6 & Flood Planned Residential District to PRD -1 Planned Residential
Plain Permit District (Plan Change).
FP -6
Mr. Luce said the request is essentially a plan modification. The site is
presently zoned for townhouse development (rezoned several years ago when Pemtom
owned the property). The proponent received preliminary rezoning approval two
years ago for a church but did not request final approval in time allowed by the
ordinance, so they are now back again with essentially the same plans to repeat the
process and gain concept approval once again for the Colonial Church development
plans. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the requested rezoning, subdivision,
and flood 'plain permit with the following stipulations:
A. The final development plans must include:
1. An improved site plan identifying and clarifying proposed grades and
dimensions.
2. Delineation of future parking to accommodate future seating.
3. An improved landscaping plan illustrating landscape materials in an
appropriate quantity and scale for the site and buildings, surface treat-
ment of the entire parcel, and screening of parking and loading areas.
B. The rezoning is contingent upon completion of the final plat and the flood plain
permit.
C. Submission of an approved Developer's Agreement and parkland dedication prior
to approval of the final plat.
D. The combination of Lots 1 and 2 into one lot prior to approval of the final
plat.
Mr. Craia Hinrichs of Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, architects for the church,
presented slides illustrating the church design and construction. Mr. Jim Goulet,
also of Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, showed graphics illustrating the drainage
plans for the church. He said there would be two accesses to the church to allow
for less concentrated traffic in one single area:
Mr. Luce said the parking lot is designed to accommodate 220 cars with 20
additional spaces near the loading entrance. The meeting hall is designed to seat
3-30-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 7
650 people on the main floor with future expansion in the balcony to accommodate
1000 people total. The proposed meeting hall with have a 60 foot height.at
the ridge line and the bell tower would be 120 feet.
Mr. and Mrs. J. Evensrud, 5820 Olinger Boulevard, were present to indicate
their objection to the proposal.
Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the requests with the stipulations as stated
in the staff report and listed by Mr. Luce, and Mrs. McClelland seconded. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
9. Reorganization of Boards and Commissions.
Mr. Runyan mentioned the possibility of combining the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments with the Planning Commission and indicated it was discussed at the
March 17, 1977, Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting. He said the Board of
Appeals was A board created legally by statute and is thus different from the
Planning Commission and should not be combined. Discussion followed, and every-
one generally agreed.
The number of members on each of the three new commissions was discussed:
Mr. Lewis felt the number was too large and should be reduced to 9 members. Mr.
Kremer moved to recommend the number be changed to 9 members rather than 15.
Mr. Runyan seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Mr. C. Johnson suggested that the Planning Commission delegate three people
to work with three members of the Environmental Quality Commission on suggestions
and ideas in formulating the ordinance for commission reorganization. Discussion
followed. Mr. C. Johnson moved to appoint three Planning Commission members
to work with three members of the Environmental Quality Commission in assisting
the City Council in drafting an ordinance for creating the new boards and commis-
sions. Mr. G. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Mrs. McClelland questioned the attendance of the boards and commissions
to the City Council meetings. Mr. Luce stated that one member would be required
to attend each meeting and that they could alternate members. The Commission
generally agreed that members attending the Council meetings should be alternated.
10. Ordinance Amendment 801-A requires platting of outlots and buildable
lot divisions.
Mr. Luce said the proposed ordinance amendment would first clarify the
buildability of an outlot and state that it must be platted to be buildable, and,
second, it would formalize the policy with lot divisions and plats and clarify
whether a division would be accomplished via a lot division or a subdivision.
He continued that the procedure identified in the zoning ordinance says
the Planning Commission must first send their report to the City Council and the
City Council will then set a hearing date for the Planning Commission to present
their finding. This amendment will formalize the actual procedure and eliminate
the necessity of the Planning Commission to present their report to the City Council
before a hearing date is set.
3-30-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 8
Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the proposed amendment as stated by the
staff. Mr. Runyan seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
11. Ordinance Amendment 811-A settle_ dates for Council hearings.
Mr. Luce stated the proposed ordinance amendment would identify the present
procedure for setting hearing dates; namely, the City Council sets a hearing
date upon being informed that the Planning Commission has <taken .action on a
particular request. The present ordinance requires that a written Planning
Commission recommendation be presented to the Council before the hearing date
can be set.
Mr. Kremer moved the proposed zoning ordinance amendment be approved as
presented, and Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
12. Ordinance Amendment 812-A2 re -ado ting the flood plain ordinance.
Mr. Luce stated the City Attorney has recommended that the City re -adopt
its flood plain ordinance. The present ordinance was adopted with limited notice
and might, therefore, be subject to question in court.
Mr. C. Johnson moved the Planning Commission recommend.that the flood plain
ordinance be re -adopted in its entirety. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Mdtion carried.
13. April Planning Commission Meeting Date.
Mr. Luce recommended that the April Planning Commission meeting date be
changed from April 27, 1977, to April 19, 1977. The Commission generally agreed.
IV. Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Rust, Secretary