Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 04-19 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1977 EDINA CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D. T. Runyan, G. V. Johnson, C. E. Johnson, M. McDonald, H. E. McClelland, and R. E. Kremer. STAFF PRESENT: G. Luce, City Planner, G. Hughes, Environmental Planner, and L. Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the March 30, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. G. Johnson moved the March 30, 1977, Planning Commission minutes be approved provided paragraph 3 on page 8 is amended to read, "Mr. Kremer moved the proposed zoning ordinance amendment be approved as presented, and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion." Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion approving the March 30, 1977, Planning Commission minutes as amended. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Declaration of Buildable Lot - Outlot 1, Iroquois Hills 4th Addition. Generally located south and west of Valley View Road and east of County Road 18. (Continued from 3-2-77). Mr. Luce recalled this matter was continued at the proponent's request from the 3-2-77 Planning Commission meeting so he could meet with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District regarding a flood plain permit to allow the property to be -filled. Although the proponent's request was considered by the Watershed District in March, a decision was postponed until their April meeting. Inasmuch as that meeting was scheduled for the following night, April 20, 1977, Mr. Luce recommended this matter be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting (6-1-77). After brief discussion, Mr. S. Hughes moved the request to declare Outlot 1 of Iroquois Hills 4th Addition a buildable lot be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye, except Mr. G. Johnson who abstained. Motion carried. 2. Subdivision Wallace B. Kenneth. Generally located east of Lincoln Drive S-77-2 and and west of Malibu Drive extended. R-4 Multiple Family Rezoning Residence District and R-1 Single Family Residence District Z-77-4 to R-4 and R-2 Multiple Residential Districts and R-1 Single Family Residential District. Revised subdivision and rezoning. 'Mr. G. Hughes, the Environmental Planner, recalled the Planning Commission previously reviewed and approved a 44 lot subdivision and rezoning of the property in question provided, in part, that one of the conditions for approval should be the dedication of proposed outlots A and B for park purposes. Mr. G. Hughes stated that on March 21st the City Council reviewed those development plans and granted concept approval, also providing in part that Outlots A and B be dedicated to the City. Mr. Kenneth, the owner and developer, has since indicated that he did not anticipate the donation of both Outlots A and B, and., after.further study, decided to revise his plans in order to maximize the allowed 20 percent flood plain encroachment. As a result his present plans propose eight additional R-2 lots along the west side of Lincoln Drive and relocation of the southernmost lot line for the future apartment 4-19-77 Planning Commission minutes, page 2 site approximately 50 feet south of the location originally proposed. Mr. G. Hughes stated he recomputed the amount of proposed flood plain encroachment and determined it would not exceed the 20 percent maximum allowed encroachment. He noted an area similar to that originally requested would be donated to the City for park purposes, and public access would be provided between the northernmost R-2 lot and the southernmost apartment lot. Mr. G. Hughes recommended approval of the proposed modification in that the flood plain encroachment would not exceed 20 percent, and the eight additional R-2 lots on the west side of Lincoln Drive would allow the proponent to utilize that street to the fullest extent. Approval was recommended contingent on: 1. removal of fill from both lots 41 and 42 (the apartment sites) such that the flood plain encroachment does not exceed 20 percent; 2. that lots 1 - 13 be excepted from this plat and identified as an outlot until public access can be provided to the east; and 3. donation of Outlots A and B to the City of Edina for park purposes. Discussion followed regarding the soil conditions, noise problems, traffic patterns, and the proximity of the proposed R-2 lots from County Road 18. Mr. G. Hughes presented a graphic illustrating the area to be removed from the flood plain, the areas of added flood plain encroachment, and the revised lot layout. Mr. Kremer asked if any discussions about the advisability of connecting Lincoln and Malibu Drives had been held. Mr. G. Hughes replied that residents in the area have indicated they would prefer the Lincoln Drive cul-de-sac be extended further south but have expressed no desire to have the two cul-de-sacs connected. Mr. S. Hughes felt the City has no obligation to allow the development of all of the remaining swampland and wildlife areas in Edina. He requested that Lincoln Drive be staked out to see how close the additional R-2 lots would be to County Road 18. Mr, G. Hughes indicated that from a wildlife standpoint, the most productive area on this site is along County Road 18 where most of the water and natural cover exists. Mr. Rick Davies, spokesman for the Parkwood Knolls/Malibu Heights Neighborhood Association, confirmed that residents in the area would urge that the Lincoln Drive cul-de-sac be moved further south so more people at the south end of the Kenneth site would have access directly to the north. Mr. Kremer felt the traffic problem in the area would be significantly reduced if the proposed roads were connected. Mr., Lewis, Mr. C. Johnson and Mrs. McClelland agreed. After considerable discussion, Mr. S. Hughes moved the requested rezonings and subdivision be continued to the June 1, 1977, Planning Commission meeting, that the proponent be urged to reconsider connecting the cul-de-sacs to create a north/south through street, and that he be required to stake out the middle line of Lincoln Drive to illustrate where that road and the proposed R-2 lots would be located. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3. Subdivision Muir Woods 2nd Addition. C. L. Fraser and M._Weegman. S-77-4 Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Muir Woods, generally located east of Comanche Court and south of Paiute Pass. Mr. Luce recalled the Planning Commission at their last meeting approved a two - lot subdivision on Valley View Road (proposed Muir Woods 3rd Addition) and continued to this meeting a request to create two buildable lots further north with access to Valley View Road via a 20 foot strip of land along the rear of the lots on Comanche 4-19-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 Court (proposed Muir Woods 2nd Addition). Mr. Luce stated that although it was suggested at one time that the residents might be interested in purchasing the property in question, to his knowledge no purchase agreement has been discussed. Mr. Luce recommended the proposed plat of Muir Woods 2nd Addition be denied and that the property be incorporated into the final plat of Muir Woods*3rd Addition. The resulting three -lot plat would simplify the description of the properties involved and identify the "neck lot" at the top of the hill, which exists as a single tax parcel and should therefore be incorporated into the proposed platting of the adjacent land. Mr. Kremer moved the proposed plat of Muir Woods 2nd Addition (subdivision of the existing neck lot) be denied because the 20 foot wide access strip would not provide acceptable or adequate access for two lots or suitable turn -around space for emergency and other vehicles. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. After discussion, Mr. Kremer clarified the motion would deny the proposed two lot subdivision with "neck access from Valley View Road and would require that that parcel be incorporated into the proposed plat of Muir Woods 3rd Addition (two lot subdivision fronting onto Valley View Road) as a single lot. In addition, as a condition of the final plat tree removal and grading permits must be obtained prior to any development on the site. Mr. Luce suggested the three lot subdivision be titled Muir Woods 2nd Addition at the time of final platting so approved plats in the vicinity are in consecutive numerical order. All generally agreed. All voted aye on Mr. Kremer's earlier motion to deny the proposed plat of Muir Woods 2nd Addition, except Mr. S. Hughes who abstained. Mr. Lauren Pederson, 7029 Comanche Court, and several other neighbors expressed concern that the northerly lot would be developed in the future and the 20 foot road would not provide sufficient access. He also was concerned that snow from that road would be plowed onto the backyards of the homes.on Comanche Court and would eventually melt and drain into their basements. Mr. Luce clarified the result of the Planning Commission action would be a subdivision with two lots along Valley View Road and one lot to the north, all in one addition, to be labelled Muir Woods 2nd Addition at the time of final platting. Mr. Kremer added that approval would not preclude purchase of the northerly lot by adjacent residents, but ff the adjacent property owners do not purchase the land, one house could be constructed.on the site. No further action was taken. III. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Subdivision Betty McCauley. McCauley Heights 8th Addition. Generally S-77-7 and located south of McCauley Lane, north of Margaret's Lane Rezoning and east of County Road 18. R-1 Single Family Residence Z-77-10 District to R-2 Multiple Residence District. Mr. Luce indicated the proponents are requesting to divide the property in question into five lots. Although they originally intended to.request that lots 1 through 4 (located along McCauley Trail) be rezoned from R-1 to R-2, after further review they agreed that lot 3 should remain a single family lot because it would not have access to McCauley Trail but would have access to McCauley Terrace instead. He recommended approval of the request for five -lot subdivision and rezoning of lots 1, 2, and 4 from R-1 to R-2. He added, however, that approval of the subdivision should be contingent on payment of a parkland dedication fee in the amount of 5 percent 4-19-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 of the raw land value and dedication of five feet adjacent to McCauley Trail for side- walk, bikeway, and snow storage purposes. Mr. Luce noted a house presently exists on lot 5. He clarified that lot 3 should not be rezoned to R-2 because its access serves single family homes only and it would be inappropriate for a double bungalow. In reply to Mr. Tom McCauley, the proponent'.s.son, and Mr. Gib Feig, Mr. Luce explained the proposed double bungalows along McCauley Trail would be required to maintain a minimum 30 foot front yard setback. Because dedication of an additional five foot strip of land is being required along McCauley Trail, the front lot lines illustrated on the preliminary plat would be relocated five feet further east; the front setback would then be measured from the relocated front lot line. After brief discussion, Mr. Kremer moved the requested subdivision and rezoning (of lots 1, 2, and 4) be approved subject to payment of the requisite parkland dedication fee and dedication of an additional five foot strip of land along McCauley Trail for bikeway and snow storage purposes. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Consolidation of Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Commission. Mr. G. Hughes noted that three members of the EQC were in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting that evening to gain a better understanding of that Commission's function and to meet with three members of the Planning Commission to discuss the proposed consolidation of the two commissions. He recalled the City Council recently asked that a joint committee of the Planning Commission and EQC be formed to study the proposed consolidation and draft an ordinance to that effect for presentation to the Council. Mr. S. Hughes, Mrs. Helen McClelland, and Mr. C. Johnson volunteered to represent the Planning Commission on the committee and to meet after the meeting in progress had been adjourned. No further action was taken. 3. Resolution of Appreciation for Greg Luce, City Planner. Mr: Runyan moved that a resolution of appreciation be adopted by the Planning Commission for Greg Luce, who recently resigned his position as City Planner effective April 21, 1977. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion, and all voted aye to adopt a resolution of appreciation, as follows: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, GREG LUCE has served as staff for the Edina Planning Commission since his employment by the City of Edina on March 16, 1971, and •WHEREAS, GREG LUCE has brought to the Planning Commission the benefit of his knowleged and experience in the field of urban planning, and WHEREAS, application by GREG LUCE of that knowledge and experience contributed greatly to the qualified performance of the duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission by members of that commission and to the orderly growth and development of the City of Edina, NOW, THEREFORE, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Edina on this 19th day of April, 1977, extend their sincere appreciation for his services and express their personal thanks to GREG LUCE for his dedication to the fulfillment of his duties and responsibilities as City Planner for the City of Edina and staff for the Edina Planning Commission. IV. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary