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