Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 06-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA Edina Community Development and Planning Commission Wednesday, June 28, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. Edina City Hall Council Chambers I. Approval of the May 31, 1978, Minutes. II. Old Business: Z-78-7 Braemar Assoc. R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located on the northwest corner of West 78th St. and Cahill Rd. III. New Business: 5-78-11 Morine's Addition. Generally located north of Morning- side Road and west of Grimes Avenue. S-78-12 St. Alban's Addition. Generally located north of Valley View Road and west of Gleason Road. S-78-13 Edina Interchange Center 7th Addition. Generally lo- cated west of Ohms Lane and north of West 73rd St. S-78-14 Preliminary R.L.S. for Dewey Hill Addition. Gener- ally located north of W. 78th Street, west of Braemar Park, and south of Dewey Hill Road. IV. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1978, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Wm. Lewis, Chairman, M. McDonald, R. Seaberg, D. Johnson, G. Johnson, H. McClelland,. D. Runyan, J. Bentley, S. Hughes, and L. Fernelius. Staff Present: G. Hughes, Planning Director, F. Hoffman, City Engineer, and N. Rust, Secretary. I. Approval of the May 31, 1978, Minutes. Ms. McClelland said she wished to correct the sixth paragraph, page 7, to read ". . . because she was not convinced that the damage done to the slopes and trees can be controlled and limited to 15 percent of the total -lot." An additional correction the Commission wished made was the motion on page 7 should be "carried" rather than "passed" on to the City Council as a tie vote. Mr. S. Hughes moved the May 31, 1978, minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-78-7 Braemar Assoc. R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located on the northwest corner of West 78th Street and Cahill Road, Mr. G. Hughes said the Commission should recall that this request was continued from the May 31, 1978, meeting to allow the proponent time to prepare a revised site plan which would have a reduced number of units and a greater respect for the topographical features of the site. He said the proposal at the last meeting was for 50 townhouse units at Cahill Road and West 78th Street. Access for the units would be by way of Delaney Boulevard and Cahill Road. Mr. G. Hughes said the revised plans were brought in that day and proceeded to show them to the Commission. He said the revised plans had reduced the total number of units on the site from 50 to 41. Also, the earlier proposal had a double row of townhouses on the southern portion of the site which had now been eliminated and replaced with a single row of town- houses. The 35 -foot setback from all boundary lines was observed in the re- vised plan. Mr. G. Hughes felt the revised site plan went a long way in answering the concerns of the Commission. It provided a reduction in the number of units and was arranged in a manner which further respected the topo- graphy of the site. However, staff still had a number of concerns: 1. The first concern was the southerly access to the townhouses was unto Cahill Road and was located close to the intersection on West 78th Street, a distance of 50 feet, and it could cause some difficulties in regard to turning movements into the townhouse complex. 2. An additional concern was with the alignment of the roadway in this location. He felt because it was located on the crest of the ridge around the site, it would result in an extensive amount of grading and tree removal. It would also disturb the natural buffer between the town- house units and West 78th Street. One suggestion Mr. G. Hughes made was the Minutes of the Regular CD and PC Meeting (June 28, 1978) Page 2 roadway could be relocated such that it would be -north of the townhouses and would move the intersection further from West 78th Street and retain the natural buffer. He said the proponents, however, have indicated they do not desire such a road location because it would cause problems with the walk out units. In response to Mr. fernelius, Mr. Jack Barron, the proponent, said lot coverage would be greatly reduced and this plan would give them a better opportunity to formulate individual residences, Mr. S. Hughes felt the request should be continued one month to give the Commission time to review the plans since they had just received them. Mr. Barron said the building plans may not be exactly as those shown. They were only a prototype of what they would build.. He felt he had conformed to the request of the Com- mission by providing a lower density. Mr. Fernelius asked if it would be possible to provide access at the northeast corner and begin construction of the northerly units. Mr. Barron responded they were prepared to begin con- struction on the south ten units and, therefore, needed a south street. However, in the future, they would close this road down and use Delaney Boule- vard as access as it should be constructed by the end of the summer in 1979. Mr. G. Hughes noted that the present schedule shows Delaney Boulevard should be serviceable by the end of the summer in 1979, Mr. Barron said if the road were completed then, he would use Delaney as his access rather than Cahill road. He also said he did not wish to put a road north of the townhouse units 'because he felt the ground was not as solid, the same number of trees would have to be removed, and the units would lose their walk out effect. He felt the trees presently on the site were not long lasting trees and -a large amount of replatting would be necessary regardless of how many trees were lost in the construction process. Mr. Runyan felt planting should be done along West 78th Street and that it would be more desirable to leave the units on the bank as proposed. He felt the revised site plan was much more free and open than the last plan. In response to Mr. Fer•nelius, Mr. Barron said it would be possible to begin construction on the northerly units first, but he did not want to as those units were not as desirable, and, from past experience, it was better to construct the better units first. In response to Mr. Seaberg, Mr. Barron agreed there was a traffic problem at Cahill and West 78th Street, but wanted to retain the hill if he could. Ms. McClelland said the proponent was asking for 41 units when 38 -was the maximum number of units allowed on the site, which may be the cause ----,� for the planning difficulties they were tet encountering. She felt the request should be considered at least another 30 days. Mr. G. Hughes said that according to the Southwest Edina Plan, this property and those pieces north of it are allowed a density of 0-12 units per acre; in 1975, the City Council adopted a density reduction plan which reduced the allowable density on this site to 6 units per acre, thus creating the 38 allowable units. Ms. McClelland said she had questions on traffic and the use of the topography. Mr. G. Hughes felt the builder should begin the northwest portion of the site. He said one possibility would be to close off the road when they can use Delaney Boulevard for access. Mr. G. Hughes said he felt 6.7 units per acre would not be a problem. Mr. Barron said the first revision consisted of Minutes of the Regular CD and PC Meeting (June 28, 1978) Page 3 44 units; however, they were told they did not have enough area for emergency vehicles. Therefore, he reduced the site to include 41 units so he did have the required 22 feet between all corners. He did not feel that taking three units out of the plan would adjust the plan a great deal. Mr. Fernelius said he wished to delay the request one month to allow him time to look at the site in lieu of the new plan. Mr. Seaberg said he did not like the present road location because of safety problems. Mr. S. Hughes felt because the proponent did not seem to know exactly what he would build on the site and in view of the fact they had received the revised site plan only tonight, they should continue the request for one month. Mr. Barron said it was difficult to design units before he knew what he could do on the site, and asked the Commission what they wished him to do. Mr. Runyan asked if they were bringing in points which did not per- tain to the decision they were now asked to make which was whether or not they should approve the rezoning from R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District; he said what they were now doing was looking at the final design. He wondered if they should be deciding upon the rezoning rather than the final design. Mr. G. Hughes said he felt it was appropriate at this time for the developer to provide only certain information, such as topographi- cal features of the site, building placement, and location of roadways, so he does not incur extra costs in case it is not approved. Grading plans would be required for final approval, along with any final building plans, Mr. Seaberg said he felt they should approve the rezoning of the pro- perty so the proponent has a direction to take in planning the site, Mr. Lewis -felt they could not rely on the probability that the pro- ponent would obtain access by way of Delaney Boulevard because it may not be completed by the time the units are completed. Ms. McClelland said she did not like the proposed road unto Cahill Road and suggested the possibility of a turnaround north of the proposed road location rather than a temporary road unto Cahill Road, This should elimi- nate some of the traffic problems. Following short discussion on the proposed roadway, Mr. Fernelius said he wished the proponent to work with staff on other roadway possibili- ties and moved the request be continued to the August 2, 1978, meeting, Ms. McClelland seconded the motion, Mr.'Lewis said he had no argument with the rezoning but that he would rather see more details. Mr. G, Hughes said the problem was the phasing of the project, for if they began with the northerly units, the road unto Cahill Road as proposed would not be necessary, Mr. Barron asked how serious the Commission was about 38 maximum units because that would make a difference in his planning. The Commission indicated they would favor 41 unitsif, the topography and road problems could Minutes of the Regular CD and PC Meeting (June 28, 1978) Page 4 Barron said he could not provide be solved. In response to Mr. Seaberg, Mr. Barrbecause West 78th Street access on the southwest portion of the property dropped at 10 percent. Upon voting, all voted aye to continue the request to August 2, 1978. Motion carried, III. NEW BUSINESS: S-78-11 Morine's Addition. Generally located north of Morningside Road and west of Grimes Avenue. Mr. G. Hughes said the subject property was located at the corner requesting of Grimes Avenue and Morningside Road. He said the proponentwas subdivision of the existing 100 font by 140 the foothlot.po The eoprof present- lynents lives in a single family dwelling Off G. Hughes said that some years ago, jn6n foot byot0byf1ot lot was split is from the original lot leaving a rema g proposed to be subdivided into two whichfoot by 140 wouldbe required becauseot lots. Hofsthistdue to the number of variances w i Appeals and Adjustments so divi- sion, this request was first taken to the Board of App get their general reacsion towhether sothe rrnot these the proponent could proponent variances could be granted if the subdivi_ were ich ould hot be for lan would not have to incur any extra costs that am eetinghwere wattached to thesi- ble. Mr. G. Hughes said the minutes of staff report and said at this time, the Board of Appeals did not grant the variances but did indicate that if the subdivision were approved, they would react favorably to the variances. Mr. G. Hughes said there are several similar replattthesnof corner hwest lots on the northwest Avenue, thetheast northeastners of corner ofnGrAimesuAvenue, and the corner of Crocker northeast corner of Alden. He said iathere werest also nd isolated lotsorof a pre - similar size as the request, such as on cedent had been established in this casenofgcoorneorolots.allow Mr. G. Hughes said this type, particularly in this staff thus recommended approval of the requested subdivision with the fol- lowing conditions: 1. Receipt of subdivision dedication. 2. The granting of the variances,. referred to earlier, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Mr. S. Hughes agreed there was a precedent established and moved for approval of the requested subdivision withconditions difficulties getting statedtbytstaff. garage, Mrs. McDonald asked if there would be any The proponent said no and she subsequently seconded the motion, All voted aye. Motion carried. Addition. Generally Roadalocated north of Valley S-78-12 St. Alban's View Road and west of Gleason of ract Mr. G. Hughes explained the subject pby St.yAlbanaswas3Episcopal.75 acretChurch. land located on Gleason Road presently owned by St. Minutes of the Regular CD and PC Meeting (June 28, 1978) Page 5 He said the proponents are requesting permission to subdivide the property into nine single famiy lots which range in size from approximately 11,500 square feet on the southerly portion of the site to approximately 20,000 square feet on the northerly portion of the site. The property would be served by a cul-de-sac off Gleason Road. He said staff had reviewed the set- backs retained after the subdivision, and the required 50 foot setback from the church could be maintained. Mr. G. Hughes said one basic concern was the location of the cul-de- sac at Gleason Road because of the impaired sight distance due to the curve in Gleason Road and the driveway. The desired sight distance is 350 feet for the southbound traffic. However, a sight distance of 200 feet is available. Mr. G. Hughes said the proposed lots are consistent in size and arrangement with the surrounding properties; but a more desirable subdivision would be to shift the proposed cul-de-sac with Gleason Road to the southerly portion of the site. This would provide adequate site distances for traffic, The pro- ponent, however, felt it was not a good idea to shift the cul-de-sac southerly because the road will then cut into the sloping portion of the site and a retaining wall may be necessary. This also moved it closer to the existing church building. Staff, on the other hand, felt this grade would be more desirable than that proposed. Staff, therefore, favored the cul-de-sac with the road moved southward. Mr. G. Hughes noted there was an existing cul--de-sac north of the subject property which has similar sight distance deficiencies but no unusual traffic problems have been recorded as a result of those de- ficiencies. He said staff recommended approval of the proposed. subdivision with the modification of the road location with the following conditions: 1. Receipt of subdivision dedication. 2. An executed Developer's Agreement. In response to Mr. Seaberg, Mr. G. Hughes said in the north subdivision, the lots are slightly larger than in the proposed subdivision. Mr. Fernelius asked if the cul-de-sac road were relocated southward, would one lot be eliminated. Mr. R. Tronus, the developer, said that one lot would be eliminated and a second lot would be reduced in size. He said in terms of the cost of the dwellings, they would value at approximately $200,000. He felt there were other problems with moving the approach south- ward in that the road would be closer to the church. As far as moving the cul-de-sac towards St. Alban's Church, they intended to keep the building sites far enough from the church to maintain privacy for both, He further said he wished to maintain the existing grade of 10 percent without a great deal of cutting. In response to Ms. McClelland, Mr. G. Hughes said the grade of the Gleason Road cul-de-sac was 6 to 7 percent. Ms. McClelland sa she did not see a major problem with the road location and noted there not any unusual traffic problems and this cul- de-sac had a better site di stance.t� 4-6,Q- Jdga � Rei e4,_4- Ate- 5uu, Mr. W. Irwin, the developer, was concerned that if the road were moved southerly resulting in the necessity of a retaining wall, it would be dangerous for the small children from the church. Minutes of the Regular CD and PC Meeting (June 28, 1978) Page 6 Mr. Tronus felt the shape of the site was such that the road had to go down the middle of the property, A property owner who lived just north of the site was concerned the proposed lot sizes may not be compatible with the seven existing northerly lots. Mr. Clinton Odel of the church said for some time the church had wanted to expand to build a sanctuary. The only asset the church has is that northerly site and the fee for this site would allow them expansion which V:ould enhance the parish. He was also concerned for the safety of the small chil- dren because of the retaining wall which would be necessary if the road were moved southerly. The resident across the street from the site said he saw no problem with the proposed cul-de-sac but recommended a stop sign at that corner to help slow down traffic around the curve. Mr. Robert Ford, 6629 Gleason Road, felt there were no accidents on Gleason Road at that point and said a stop sign would result in a problem of traffic blocking the road. Mr. G. Johnson wished the fact be noted that he had abstained from the discussion of this request and would abstain from voting. Ms. McClelland moved for approval of the request as proposed and with the following staff conditions: 1. Receipt of Subdivision Dedication 2. An executed Developer's Agreement. Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye with the exception of Mr. G. Johnson, who abstained. Motion carried. S-78-13 Edina Interchange Center 7th Addition. Generally located - west of Ohms Lane and north if West 73rd Street. Mr. G. Hughes noted the subject property is located on the north side of West 73rd Street and west of Ohms Lane." He recalled that about a year ago, there was a replatting of the Edina Interchange Center 3rd Addition from 12 lots to 6 larger lots. Mr. G. Hughes said the request is to subdivide one of those six larger lots into two smaller ones, the west one being approximately 2 1/2 acres and the east one being approximately 3 1/2 acres. He further said staff felt it did conform to the zoning ordinance requirements and therefore recommended approval of the requested subdivision. Staff also recommended that subdivision dedication not be required in that the replatting reduced the number of lots from 12 to 6 and the parkland dedication was already based on the original platting. Mr. G. Johnson moved for approval of the requested subdivision. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried, 1 Minutes of the Regular CD and PC Meeting (June 28, 1978) Page 7 S-78-14 Preliminary R.L.S. for Dewey Hill Addition. Generally lo- cated north of West 78th Street, west of Braemar Park, and south of Dewey Hill Road. Mr. G. Hughes recalled Dewey Hill Addition was given final plat approval two to three months ago and Dewey Hill Second Addition received preliminary approval. He said prior to those approvals, about four years ago, Indian Meadows, which included some multiples, single family homes, and townhouses, was approved. At that time, the City received a -large amount of property for the Southwest Edina Storm Water Ponding System based on the Indian Meadows Plan. However, after the developers acquired the site, the plan was dropped and platted as Dewey Hill Addition. Dedication was made by Mr. G. Schuster, who owned the property at that time and lives on Lot 11, Dewey Hill Addition. This plat varied from Indian Meadows and,as a result, they are requesting a small tract of land be returned to them and separated into two smaller tracts, Tract A and Tract B, of an R.L. S. Tract A would be attached to the back of Lot 11, Dewey Hill Addition, and Tract B would be attached to Lot 12. In exchange for this tract of land, the proponent would dedicate an equal amount of land abutting City property, which would be desig- nated as an outlot. Mr. G. Hughes said the Engineering Department had re- viewed the land exchange and saw no problems from the storm water standpoint. He said staff, therefore, recommended approval of the proposed R.L.S. with the following conditions: 1. Final approval of the R.L.S. should be preceded by final approval of Dewey Hill Second Addition. 2. A quit claim deed for Tracts A and B of the R.L.S. from the City to the proponent. 3. A deed for the proposed outlot in Dewey Hill Second Addition from the proponents to the City. 4. A transfer of real estate taxes and special assessments payable in 1978 from the outlot in Dewey Hill Second Addition to the re- maining property owned by the proponents. In response to Mr. S. Hughes, Mr. G. Hughes said the City had received I this property originally by way of dedication. (oo - * %w11 6°x-6 "- "'"'� Mr. Fernelius moved for approval of the preliminary R.L.S. with the conditions stated by staff. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted Nancy J. Rust, Secretary