Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 11-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA Edina Community Development and Planning Commission Wednesday, November 29, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. Edina City Hall Council Chambers I. Approvalof the September 27 and October 25, 1978, Minutes. II. Old Business: Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn. Generally located south of 5-78-8 y Belmore Lane and north of John Street. g-78-16 Hanson Estates. Generally located and north of West 78thRoad. Street, east of Marth Court, Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3 S-78-7 located on the: • Planned Residential District. Generally northwest corner of West 78th Street and Cahill Road. III. New Business: g-78-18 Joys Edina Manor. Generally located at 5236 Richwood Drive. Lot 11, Block 2, Richmond Hills Second Addition. Date• January 4, 1979, at 7:30 P.m - IV. Next Meeting V. Adjournment T MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1978, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Leonard Ferneliusq Del Johnson, Gordon V. Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg Members Absent: Samuel Hughes Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works and Engineering; Harold Sand, Assistant Planner; Judy Teichert, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Gordon Johnson moved the minutes of the September 27 Mrd October 25, 1978, Community Development and Planning Commission meetings'. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. Old Business: 5-78-8 Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn. Generally located south of Belmore Lane and north of John Street. Mr. Gordon Hughes recommended that the proposed subdivision be continued for one month. Mary McDontldthe thesubdivision All votedbe naye;atheer staff recommendation. Richard Seaberg seconded proposed subdivision request will be continued for one month. 5-78-16 Street Estates. of MarthGenerally Court, and west located north h westof Shaughnessy Road. Staff recommended the.proposed subdivision be held over for one month as requested by the proponent. Mary McDonald moved the matter be continued for one month as per staff recommendation. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the request will be held over one month. Z-78-7 Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family District to PRD -3. Generally located on the northwest corner of West 78th Street and Cahill Road. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that the rezoni0n request was considered at the May 31, June 28, and August 2, meetings. those occasions, he continued, staff expressed concern regarding the proposed plan, especially in regard to extensive grading and tree removal required to facilitate the plan. Staff recommended several revisions to the plan in an attempt ■ Community Development and Planning Commission November 29, 1978 Page 2 to preserve the wooded ridge encircling the site. Mr. Hughes further recalled that on August 2, 1978, the Commission recommended approval of the revised plan which incorporated many of the suggestions of the Commission, and on August 21, 1978, the City Council granted preliminary approval of the proposed development plan. Gordon Hughes revealed that following Council approval, a soil investigation was conducted by the proponent which found that the depression in the central portion of the site exhibited unstable soil conditions. He said the soil report, therefore, advised that that portion of the site above the 834 foot contour line would be more favorable for development. Based upon the soil in- vestigation, the proponent submitted a revised plan to relocate the townhouse buildings away from the depression and toward the perimeter of the site. Mr. Hughes stated that although the buildings continue to maintain the required 35 foot setback, the internal roadway under this plan would maintain only a five foot setback in some locations. Staff felt that the revised plan exhibited many of the problems that they objected to on the original plan. The proposed plan, Mr. Hughes said, would necessitate extensive grading of the ridge surrounding the site and would eliminate any natural buffer from 78th Street due to the internal roadway. Staff was concerned that nearly all of the trees on the site would have to be removed to facilitate the proposed development. Therefore, staff could not recommend approval of the proposed plan because they felt the proposed plan does not represent the only solution to the development constraints imposed by the site. Gordon Hughes introduced the proponent, Jack Barron, to answer the Commission's questions. Mr. Barron explained that soil borings had revealed 26 feet of peat, and soil experts recommended 50 feet of pilings in correction which would run an approximate cost of $10,000 per unit. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Barron to respond to a comment in the staff report that in the opinion of Mr. Hughes, the wrong style of unit is being designed for the property which is dictating the problem rather than the soil problem in itself. Mr. Barron responded there were many factors dictating the problem. He stated apartment units today would not carry their own weight, nor would double bungalows. Mr. Barrow felt that single family dwellings, townhouses, and professional buildings were the main types of dwellings that would carry their own weight. Feeling that only this certain type of townhouse would work, Mr. Barron explained that walk-in rather than the walk-up style was the most suitable use of -the site. He continued that as the realtor, designer, and invester he refused to build a walk-up unit because he did not feel there was a market for them. Len Fernelius asked if there was an option to reduce the. number of units. Mr. Barron answered that it could be an option but they could not reduce much farther. Mr. Gordon Johnson added the trees make a nice buffer, and he did not like the idea of tearing them all out. Mr. Barron replied that he did not like it either .but he intended'to replace the best he could every- thing that would be taken out. He noted that many of the trees are dying of dutch elm disease anyway. ■ Community Development and Planning Commission November 29, 1978 Page 5 subdivision with the following conditions: subdivision dedication be made at the time of final plat in accordance with the attached report, and a larger drainage easement would have to be delineated on the plat depending upon the type of dwelling constructed on the lot which would have to be determined by the time of final plat. Gordon Hughes introduced Mr. Harold Haas, the property owner, and Mr. Robert Schmidt, the contract purchaser for the lot to answer the Com- mission's questions. Gordon Johnson asked Gordon Hughes how staff was planning to channel the water run-off to Verrion Avenue. Mr. Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works and Engineering, stated there is at the present time a pipe under Vernon Avenue. Mr. Richard Seaberg asked if it consisted of a trough between the sidewalk and the hill. Mr. Hoffman replied there is an 18 inch pipeline i?hich runs underground. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Hoffman both felt that some arrangement could probably be worked out to lessen the drainage requirement. Len Fernelius asked if a drainage pipe were put in if no easements would be necessary then. Mr. Hoffman clarified that a small bee -hive basin would be necessary in the back at a low point for the water that would drain down. The overall amount would be much smaller, however, and to a great extent it depends on the type of home and what kind of filling they do. Mary McDonald asked if the pipe would be done at the developer's expense. Mr. Hoffman concurred that it would be. Len Fernelius asked if 40 feet would be unacceptable to the builder. Gordon Hughes answered that it depends upon the style of the house. Mr. Harold Haas stated that when he bought the property a year and a half ago, it was a gathering place for junk. He felt he could most improve the site by splitting the lot off and.having a nice looking home built on it which would conform with the area. He said he has had many meetings with Fran Hoffman to talk over the water drainage problem, and the house which Mr. Schmidt planned to build would not require much fill. Len Fernelius asked if the proponents had any disagreement with the easements wherever they are necessary for the drainage. Mr. Haas replied they would give whatever the City thought they had to have. Mr. Robert Schmidt said he had been looking for a unique type of lot to build a contemporary home built into the landscape rather than having a yard. He continued that the lot would not have a yard, but he intended to build the house into the side of this bowl -shaped property with decks.for a yard. In regards to the easement area for the water, he stated his intention was to hook the pipes together so there would be no ponding area in the back. Mr. Schmidt felt his proposed home would be an asset to the area. Mr. Dyer J. Powell of 5224 Richwood Drive voiced his concern about the water drainage of the area with this development. The Engineering y Community Development and Planning Commission November 29, 1978 Page 6 Department indicated to Mr. Powell that the pipe drainage would be*adequate.to serve the area. However, he was wondering if he would have legal recourse to the City if there was a heavy rain and the pipe could not accommodate all the run-off and his home was flooded. Chairman Lewis answered Mr. Powell that he would have to depend on the Engineering Department if they say it is satisfactory. Mr. Powell said he had no other objections to the home being built. Helen McClelland asked Mr. Schmidt if he planned to exit from his home onto Richwood Drive. Mr. Schmidt replied they did plan to exit onto Richwood Drive. He also stated he felt the 18 inch pipe should hold most of the water otherwise his home would be flooded. Mr. Fran Hoffman clarified that even if an 18 inch pipe is installed a bee -hive catch basin would still be necessary, but it would be able to handle the run-off without affecting Mr. Powell. _Mr. Jim Bentley recalled that this item had come up before the Environmental Planning Board a number of years ago, but several neighbors had complained about the fact that the skating pond in the winter time would be eliminated. Several neighbors spoke up and said they had no opposition to the building of a home now. Richard Seaberg moved the Commission approve the subdivision conditioned upon the subdivision dedication attached to the staff report and that an agreement is reached between the City and the property owner on the drainage easement problem. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. Next Meeting Date: January 3, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, submitted, Judy Teichert, Secretary Community Development and Planning Commission November 29, 1978 Page 3 Gordon Hughes commented that he was not disagreeing at all with Mr. Barron's preference for walk-in type units. However, he felt the full intent of the Planned Residential District section of the ordinance was to design in accordance with the constraints imposed by the site: the ability to design the development to correspond to the site's good features rather than its poorer features. He continued that his main objection was that he felt Mr. Barron was going .about the project backwards by having the specific unit preconceived and then developing the entire site around that idea. Mr. Richard Seaberg responded that the Commission was not disagreeing with the economics nor the PRD zoning, but what they were disagreeing on was wiping out the whole section to build ten units. Mr. Barron said he wasn't sure what the alternative would be because the minute any of the peat was touched, it all must be piled which would run into a big expense and require the ten units to come out ahead. Len Fernelius .said he felt the plan which had been presented to the Commission always looked about the same, and he requested the proponents do some brainstorming and reorient the whole thing and start from scratch. Chairman Lewis said he did not feel the Commission should be bound by the economics but rather discern what was best for Edina. Gordon Johnson asked that if the bad soil was roughly at the 834 level, would that soil support a road if the units were turned around to be walk-ups. Jack Barron did not feel the townhouses would be saleable in that design. Gordon Hughes suggested that the units back into the hill with an inside roadway, which he felt would be easier to construct on stable soil. Richard Seaberg asked if the ten units plus the five units in the northeast were twice as large as the other units. Mr. Barron answered that the difference was in the garages. Jack Barron indicated he felt the most appropriate use for the site was a professional office building but because of the zoning that.was not allowable. Len Fernelius asked why he could not build a professional office building. Mr. Barron replied that if the Commission was inclined to -agree that an office building was the best use of that portion he would immediately change his plans to that use,which he also pointed out would not destroy as much of the area as the townhouses would. Gordon Hughes stated that from the historical viewpoint of the Southwest Edina plan, the original draft plan showed a -roadway system which was the dividing line between the industrial office type uses on the east side of the road and residential on the west. He continued that when the plan was finally adopted by the Council it was agreed that Cahill and 78th Street would form the dividing line between industrial offices and residential uses. He stated that he would hate to see one of the last vacant pieces of property able to get an industrial use into the residential district. Chairman Lewis added that the residents of that area have been assured of the permanency of the Southwest Edina plan also. Len Fernelius asked Gordon Hughes for his recommendation to Mr. Barron. Mr. Hughes replied that from the'townhouse standpoint he felt that the Community Development and Planning Commission November 29, 1978 Page 4 walk-up type unit was preferable to the walk-in type for this particular site. Hecontinuedthat he favored the concept of a road between the units and the ponding area with the units backed into the hill to preserve as much of the buffer area all around as possible. From the ideal development standpoint, he felt more of an intense development such as a condominium or apartment building would work very nicely. After some general discussion, Len Fernelius moved the Commission deny the plans as presented by Mr. Barron and request that he return with another plan. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion to deny Mr. Barron's request carried. III. New Business: S-78-18 Joys Edina Manor. Generally located at 5236Richwood Drive. Lot ll, Block 2, Richmond Hills Second Addi- tion. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, located on the west end of Richwood Drive, consists of a 33,850 square foot single family lot which is considerably larger than the other lots in the neighborhood, which are approximately 10,000 to 15,000 square feetinarea. He continued a two lot subdivision is requested for the property with Lot 1 measuring 15,000 square feet that would be retained for the existing dwelling, and Lot 2 measuring 18,750 square feet for a new buildable lot. Gordon Hughes stated the property, .quite steep in nature with slopes of around eighteen percent, is heavily wooded which would necessitate extensive grading and tree removal in the development of the new lot. Mr. Hughes recalled that the 1950 subdivision plan for Richmond Hills Second Addition illustrates a pond to be constructed on a portion of the subject property and adjoining lots. He continued that although the pond was never constructed, the area does serve as a drainage area for the entire sub- division. He also stated that no easements were ever granted over the area and, to staff's knowledge, no deed restrictions or protective covenants were established to preclude the further subdivision of the subject property. Gordon Hughes reported that the proposed subdivision conforms with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, maintains required setbacks for the existing dwelling on the subject property, and creates lots similar in size to the other lots in the neighborhood. Staff voiced concern that, due to the topography of the site, the development of Lot 2 could adversely affect the storm water storage and drainage area of the neighborhood. The proponent indi- cated a willingness to dedicate 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear and side property lines. Mr. Hughes stated, however, that based upon field surveys staff would have to recommend that a 45 foot wide easement should be granted along the rear property line to ensure proper water storage and drainage, and to prevent storm water problems on the adjoining lots. Staff also noted the amount of easements needed would depend to a great degree on the type:of dwelling constructed on the lot. Staff recommended approval of the