Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 07-06 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regularr , . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1977, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL I. 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.:L— Hughes,. Planning Director, and N. Rust, Secretary TI. Approval of the June 1, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. S. Hughes informed the Commission that he had abstained from voting on the Russell R. Wilson Subdivision of Lot 6, Prospect Hills First Addition and moved for approval of the June 1, 1977, Planning Commission minutes as corrected. Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. Old Business: 1• Subdivision Villa View Addition Mark Z Jones Company. Generally S-77-8 located at the south end of Oxford Avenue and north of Villa Way Apartments. Mr. Lewis informed the Planning Commission that he wished to abstain from the discussion and voting of this request because he lived in the adjacent Villa Way Apartments. The proponent was not present. Mr. G. Hughes explained the subject property was presently zoned R-2. Two - Family Dwelling District and consisted of seven existing lots which are similar in size to remaining lots on Oxford Avenue. He said the proponent is requesting a replatting of the area which would consolidate the seven lots into three, Lot 1 with access off Oxford Avenue and Lots 2 and 3, with access off a private road presently serving the Villa Way Apartments. Mr. G. Hughes explained the subject property is characterized by very steep slopes coming off Oxford Avenue and is heavily wooded. He said the existing lots which abut the property to the north are quite small and are in a 6,000 to 10,000 square foot range; on the western side of the site, hcwever, the lots are quite large. The proposed lots are relatively large in size and range from 16,000 to 24,000 square feet. Mr. G. Hughes said that in staff's review of the division, a number of very good features were determined: 1. The structures proposed for Lots 2 and 3 take advantage of the topography of the site. 2. The reduction from seven R-2 lots to three R-2 lots is desirable. 3. The proposed access for Lots 2 and 3 to the private road serving Villa Way Apartments prevents undue.filling of these lots. How- ever•, staff is extremely concerned with the concept of providing 7-6-77 planning Commission Minutes, page 2 access to Lots 2 and 3 from a private roadway. Such a concept would result in the construction of two private dwellings without frontage on a public street. Such an arrangement has always been avoided in conventional types of development. It may be arrgueed that the structures proposed for Lots 2 and 3.are nothing than "isolated" rental units and should be considered as part of the Villa Way Apartments. However, there is no assurance that these units would remain as rental units. roval of the proposed subdivision in He said staff would therefore recommend app that: 1. The subdivision results in a desirable reduction in the number of lots in this location. 2. Lots are of adequate size as compared to surrounding properties. 3. Lot configuration is acceptable. 4. Adequate public road access is available to all three lots. Approval should be contingent on: 1. Access to the lots must be provided directly to a public roadway. Access from Lots 2 and 3 to the private road on the north side of the Villa Way Apartments will not be allowed. 2. The proposed 60 -foot radius cul-de-sac proposed at Oxford. Avenue should be reduced to 50 feet. 3. A tree cutting permit must be obtained prior to grading and construction of the site. the nne Mr. G. Hughes further ow theid taff would structurescouldMbeecons proponent on hotsx2mand 3� the proposal closely as t and vegetation.. to minimize'disturbances of the topography In response to Mr. S. Hughes, Mr. G. Hughes said the proponent could now legally build on the existing lots; however, it would be verhedsaidcthereewassan of the large volume of fill which would be required. Also, easement on the site which would require vacation and, because oingthe drainage - problem, a suitable ,:drainage system would be necessary. Sion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the subdivision request be continued to the July 27, 1977,meeting because of questions concerning construction, etc., and resent. Mr. S. Hughes seconded. All voted aye.with advised the proponent be p the exception of Mr. Lewis, who abstained. Motion carried. 2. Rezoning Jack ovick. Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172. Z-77-11 Generall located at 4626 France Avenue South. R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-2 Two Family Residence District. Mr. -G. Hughes recalled that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had heard this request for rezoning and continued it to allow the proponent additional 7-6-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 time to complete his plans. He explained the proponent is requesting permission to rezone two existing single family lots on France Avenue to R-2 Two -Family Dwelling District. Mr. G. Hughes explained the proponent's plans show two two-family dwellings on Lots 3 and 4 which would beioriented north -south rather than east -west, sharing a common driveway access from France Avenue with a courtyard proposed between the two structures. He said staff, in reviewing the proposal, had found some very good points regarding land use; the R-2 zoning requested is consistent with other uses along France Avenue, as Lots 7, 8, and 9 are presently zoned R-2 and developed with two-family dwellings. Staff, therefore, recommended approval of the rezoning proposal for the following reasons: 1. The proposed land use is consistent with other properties abutting France Avenue and is a proper land use for this location. 2. Setbacks and lot coverage requirements can be met. 3. The common driveway access minimizes traffic hazards on France Avenue. Rezoning approval should be contingent on: 1. Lot size variances.from the Board of Appeals. The proponent, Mr. Jack Ovick, indicated if the cost of retro -fitting the present single family dwelling into a two-family dwelling was too great, the structure would be moved to another site and an entirely new structure would be built. In response to Mrs. McClelland's concern over the excessive lot coverage, Mr.. G. Hughes said the lots are substandard and would therefore require a variance from the Board of. Appeals and Adjustments prior to final rezoning approval to allow the larger lot coverage. Regarding the structure's height and its effect on setbacks, the proponent. said the proposed roof would be 23 feet high and would, in essence, be lower than the existing single family dwelling roof. The proponent also said he had a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Russell of 4600 France Avenue South indicating their approval of the proposal. Mrs. Mary Jo Aiken of 4548 France Avenue South expressed no objections to the proposal provicU4g only two dwellings are located on the site. In response to Mr. Runyan, the proponent said the driveway would have ade- quate area and two stalls per unit would be provided totalling eight enclosed parking stalls, as well as two additional off-street parking stalls per unit. In response to Mr. S. Hughes, the proponent said this should not set a precedent as there were very few lots in Edina with a: similar situation and pro- ceeded to show photographs of a similar development in Minneapolis. In response to Mr. Michael Doyle, 4634 France Avenue South, the proponent said the total construction cost would be approximately $50,000 per dwelling unit 7-6-77 planning Commission Minutes, page 4 or a total of $200,000 and, if approved by the City, the dwellings should be ready for vacancy in the spring of 1978. Mrs. McDonald moved for approval of the rezoning request subject to the variance approval by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. G. Johnson seconded. All voted aye with the exception of Mrs. McClelland, who voted nay. Motion carried. 3. Subdivision. Ra.uenhorst Cor ration. Normandale Park Addition. Tract 5-77-13 and L, R. L. S. No. 1129. Generali located at the north- S-77-13west L. S.N- of W. 76th Street and France Avenue. PID Rezoning 2 Planned Industrial District to C-1 Commercial District. Mr. G. Hughes recalled that this request was considered at the last Planning Commission meeting wherein the proponent requested a rezoning from Planned Indust- rial District to C-1 Commercial District to allow coast 1 tion of a vis res rant the on the site. He said the proponent is also requesting property- He indicated that, as requested by the Planning mer°allowing�asSpecia 1 consulted the City Attorney regarding the legality Use or Conditional Use Permit for restaurant use in the C-1 zone or an amendment to the present ordinance allowing restaurants as a principle use in the PID zone. Mr. G. Hughes referred to the letter from the City Attorney whichessentialelorsaid that either a special or conditional use amendment to the present amendment to the PID section of the ordinance allowing restaurants as a principle use would be legal options. Following subsequent conversations with the City Attorney, however, he had indicated that a zoning to C-1 with a simple condition that the use be for restaurant purposes only would not be binding and therefore advised against this action. As requested by the Commission, staff had also researched the possibility of allowing restaurants as a use in the PID district. Mr. G. Hughes noted that in the Office Building District section of the zoning ordinance, restaurants and',,, other accessory uses were allowed in Office Buildings having 40,000 or more square feet or at least 200 full-time employees. Also, accessory>uses could not exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area. He further noted a similar type of use is allowed in Regional Medical District, but it does not require ent ofthe 200gfullross floor employees, and the accessory uses may cover up to 20 area. He said the primary purpose of these accessory uses is to provide service oriented facilities to individuals employed in the office buildings and employees and visitors of medical buildings. Mr. G. Hughes said staff had reviewed the South Edina Plan which further stated as an objective the requirement or provision ro isiontof incentives to incorporation office, rants industrial, or large apartment developersossi.ble travel. He said and other uses in developments to capturtointercept amend the PID section of the staff therefore feels it would be appropriate ordinance to allow restaurant and other uses as accessory uses, and he referred to a graphic showing the locations of restaurants, lunchrooms, and vending services in southeastern Edina, which were determined through Health Department and zoning records. Mr. G. Hughes said staff would continue to recommend against the C-1 zoning for the following reasons: 7-6-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5 1. The request is inconsistent and not..in conformance with the South Edina Plan. 2. The requested C-1 zoning provides no assurances that the subject property will, in fact, be used only for restaurant purposes. Allowable C-1 uses such as retail commercial would be undesirable from a land use and traffic standpoint. 3. Adequate sanitary sewer capacity is not available for the proposed land use. 4. The requested rezoning would set a precedent for strip commercial development on vacant land abutting France Avenue on both the east and west sides. Such a use..would not be in conformance with the concepts contained in the South Edina Plan. Mr. G. Hughes said staff would also recowmend that the Planning Commission sgggest to the City Council an ordinance amendment allowing restaurant and other service -related facilities as accessory uses in the PI.D zone as they are currently allowed in the Office Building District. He said staff strongly urges restaurants not be allowed as a principle use in the PID zone based on the precedence set, and further recommended against the establishment of Special Use or Conditional Use Permits because of past administrative and enforcement problems resulting from such permits. Staff felt this would also start an undesirable precedent. Mr. Peter Jarvis, Bather-Ringrose-Wolsfeld, felt the.Edina Ordinances seemed too inflexible and said a restaurant such as the one proposed would tend to keep employees in the area rather than encourage them to leave and search out other facilities. Mr. Kremer felt there was a need for restaurants in southeastern Edina and that it would not create:a precedent for other areas because of deed restrictions. Following brief discussion, Mr. S. Hughes moved for denial of the rezoning request from PID to C-1 for reasons in the staff report. Mrs. McClelland seconded.', Upon -.roll call, the following voted: Ayes: Lewis, Hughes, Runyan, C. Johnson, McDonald, McClelland. Nays: G. Johnson, Kremer. Motion carried. Discussion followed regarding the proponent's next step toward rezoning the property to allow restaurant use. The proponent indicated intent to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. No further action. III. New Business: 1. Subdivision Oliver Development Company: Blake Ridge Estates. Gen - S -77-14 and erally located south of Vernon Avenue and west of Rezoning Olinger Boulevard. PRD -3 Planned Residential District Z-77-13 to R-1 Single Family Residence District. Mr. G. Hughes explained the general location of the subject property and recalled that approximately five years ago, the property was rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District to allow construction of 82 townhouse units. He said there are presently 20 constructed townhouses on the north 1/3 of the site and 10 additional townhouses are scheduled 7-6-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 6 for construction in the near future. He noted that as part of the original town- house project, a rather large open space area was proposed for the central portion of the site and south of the existing townhouses. He said the property was platted at that time into three lots; Lot 1 being the location of the existing townhouses and Lots 2 and 3 the subject property which is proposed to be rezoned from PRD -3 to R-1 and subdivided into 17 single family lots. Mr. G. Hughes indicated the lots are 'Large in size and range from 12,000 to 24,000 square feet. Mr. G_ -Hughes noted that when the property was originally platted, the continued townhouse development was anticipated; therefore the owners were allowed to plat the boundary lines very close to the existing :townhouses, with one loca- tion being only six feet from the lot line. Mr.. G. Hughes said that at staff level, they believe that most individuals purchased townhouses on the north side with assurance of future continuation of the townhouse project and open space area, and that, because this proposed single family development would eliminate the large open space area, staff has requested the developer to provide a 35 -foot open space easement between the townhouse development and rear portion of the single family lots. He said.staff also recommended a similar easement along the remaining perimeter of the development varying from 30-35 feet to provide a buffer between the single family dwellings and Bredesen Park. Mr. G. Hughes said staff felt the townhouse development continuation would be most desirable, but recognized single family use as a possible land use and logical transition between Bredesen Park and the townhouse development. He said staff was concerned with the technicality of the easements and would want their approval by staff prior to final approval. He said staff would recommend approval of the subdivision and rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The proposed land use and lot sizes are consistent with surrounding properties. 2. A single family development is a logical transition between the townhouses and Bredesen Park. 3. The proposed open space easements should provide an adequate buffer zone for the development. Approval should be contingent on: 1. Access to all proposed lots must be from Olinger Circle. No driveway curb cuts will be allowed on.Olinger Boulevard. 2. Submission of all easement agreements to the City for review and approval prior to final approval. Such easement agreements must address maintenance, under- standings, and use of the easement by residents of the townhouses and single family dwellings. 3. Submission and approval by the city of a suitable landscaping plan for the ease- ment are prior to final approval. 4. An executed developer's agreement. 5. A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 7-6-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 7 6. Vacation and/or realignment of existing utility easements on the subject property. Mr. Harold Posnick, Builtwell Construction Company, said that after numerous surveys, it was determined the demand for townhouses has decreased, particularly in Edina, and recalled that the subject property was originally owned by them but sold to the industrial National Bank, who foreclosed on it and sold it back. Mr. Egil Wefold, 6063 Blake Ridge Road, said that when to::•nhouse owners purchased their townhomes, they were under the impression their property extended to the proposed rear property lines of the single-family lots until a survey was madd which determined the correct property line. He said he had no objection to single-family residences on the site; however, he felt the open space easement should be deeded to Blake Ridge and indicated Blake Ridge had maintained that strip of property in the past and did not wish to share maintenance costs with the.single family homeowners. He also said the townhouse residents did not care for the pro- posed walkway and did not wish to share facilities with the single family homeowners. He said that future grading would cause an erosion problem. Mr. Mike Posnick, Oliver Development Company, indicated an easement agree- ment should be drafted between the private parties and said.the City had a right to review"the easement. He further said they had worked closely with both the City and the townhouse residents regarding the plans and a declaration of covenants and restrictions would be drawn up by the neighborhood association. Mr. Morey Montrose, 6050 Blake Ridge Road, said when he had originally purchased his townhome, he had anticipated future townhouse development and been assured of the existing open space area. Mr. Bob Chance, 5804 Olinger Boulevard, expressed his approval of the re- quested subdivision and rezoning. Mr. Michael Kirkpatrick, 5829 Jeff Place, indicated his approval of the re- quest and felt the complaint of the townhouse association was a legal question and and should not prevent development approval. Mr. Jack Soule, 6062 Blake Ridge Road, addressed himeself to the subdivision question and said it was primarily a setback concern. Mr. Kremer said he would not approve a rezoning when the majority of the townhouse owners were opposed to it and moved for denial of the proposed rezoning and subdivision. Mr. Tonu Lang, 5816 Olinger Boulevard, indicated he was against the original townhouse development and felt the proposed single family development should be approved as it would be an excellent transition between the townhouses and Brede- sen Park. Mr. Kremer amended his motion to read the request should be continued to the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission meeting to allow the proponent and the Blake Ridge townhouse residents to work oiit their differences. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 7-6-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 8 2. Subdivision S-77-15 and Rezoning Z-77-14 Gabbert and Gabbert. Registered Land Survey. Generally located west of York Avenue and north of West 70th St. C-4 Commercial District to C-3 Commercial District. Mr. G. Hughes explained the general location of the subject property as be- ing at the northwest corner of West 70th Street and York Avenue and recalled a building permit had been issued for this piece of property for a multi -tenant commercial building. He said this site was the location of the former Southdale Car Wash. Following issuance of the building permit, staff determined the site was zoned C-4 Commercial District for car wash purposes rather than C-3 Commercial District to allow the proposed use. Staff subsequently requested the proponent to apply for a rezoning from C-4 to C-3 and a registered land survey for the sub- ject property. Mr. G. Hughes said staff recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary registered land survey for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is consistent with surrounding properties. 2. The requested rezoning is a down -zoning and will result in a more desirable development than can be achieved under the existing C-3 classification. Approval should be contingent on: 1. The submission of suitable cross easements detailing the parking requirements for the new building and other existing buildings which share a common parking lot. Mr. G. Hughes also noted that Hennepin County Highway Department indicated by letter than an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along York Avenue should be required. He recom^ended this dedication as a second condition. Following brief discussion, Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the request with the conditions`and for the reasons stated by staff:: Mrs. McClelland seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Nancy J. Rust, Secretary