Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 10-31 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDIN,A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, Richard Seaberg Members Absent: David Runyan Staff Present: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner; Fran Hoffman, City Engineer; Deborah Strand, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes Del Johnson moved that the minutes of the September 26, 1979, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. Jim Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. New Business: S-79-14 The Limited Addition (Danens Prospect Hills) generally located east of Antrim Road and west of Shannon Drive. Gordon Johnson informed the Commission that he was abstaining because of a conflict of interest. Craig Larsen informed the Commission that the subject property which measures approximately 6.3 acres in area is bounded on the northern extreme by a single family dwelling and several accessory buildings. Mr. Larsen explained that the proponent is requesting a ten lot subdivision of the property. Lot 1, Block 1 of the proposed subdivision measures 1.53 acres and would be retained for the existing dwelling and accessory buildings. The remaining nine lots proposed for development range in size from 14,000 square feet to 27,000 square feet. As proposed, Shannon Drive would be extended westerly to intersect with Antrim Road. Antrim Road would be extended southerly and cul-de-saced. Mr. Larsen said that the eastern lots of the subject property ranged in size from about 11,000 square feet to approximately 23,000 square feet. Most of the lots were 14,000 to 15,000 square feet in area. Prospect Hills lies westerly of the subject property and contained lots up to an acre. Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission that several of these lots had been further subdivided in past years. Staff agreed that the proposal represented a good transition between the smaller lots to the east, and larger lots to the west. Mr. Larsen noted that the extension of Shannon Drive to Antrim would improve traffic circulation to the area. whereas if the area was cul-de-saced, it would service only twenty lots and eliminate entrance for police and fire vehicles to the neighborhood. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission October 31, 1979 Page 2 Staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision with the extension of Shannon Drive to Antrim Road. Bill Lewis asked Mr. Larsen if any road problems would result with the extension. Mr. Larsen responded that there could be some grade problems because of the grade on Shannon Drive. Mary McDonald asked if the staff supported the extension because it would improve the overall traffic circulation of the area. Mr. Larsen showed an overhead and explained that the extension would give another access into the neighborhood and since all routes from 70th to Dewey Hill Road were difficult paths, an additional road would balance the circulation and traffic flow in the neighborhood. Rudy Trones, the developer of Shannon, addressed the Commission in favor of the second proposal, i.e. the cul-de-sac. He commented that he had talked with people in the neighborhood and felt that all supported this proposal. He preferred the cul-de-sac for several reasons: 1. It would solve the problem of too much traffic on Shannon. 2. The cul-de-sac would minimize the grade on the bottom of Antrim Circle. 3. Aesthetically the cul-de-sac was preferrable. Mr. Trones noted that Shannon Drive had a problem right angle curve at the bottom of the drive and felt that opening Shannon up would increase useage by those who were not aware of Shannon's steep grade and bad corner, thus resulting in increased accidents. Mr. Lewis responded that openening up Shannon would decrease the traffic flow since many people would go up 70th Street. Del Johnson asked Mr. Trones to comment on the lot size and how those would be affected by the cul-de-sac. Mr. Trones said that the lot sizes would be larger if the road proposal was eliminated. Mr. Tom Moore, a resident of Shannon Drive strongly recommended Mr. Trones' plan for the cul-de-sac. He felt concerned that more traffic resulting from an extension would increase potential problems from the hazardous corner on Shannon. Helen McClellaid and Bill Lewis both expressed doubt that traffic would increase on Shannon, and felt that the need for access to fire and police vehicles should outweigh the fear of more traffic. Philip Bolter, resident of Shannon Drive, supported the cul-de-sac and stated that his neighbors also preferred that proposal. He expressed concern that new development in the area would create more traffic through the proposed road. EdiAa Community Development and Planning Commission October 31, 1979 Page 3 Mr. Lewis stated that the good of the village in terms of access to fire trucks outweighed the resident's desire for privacy and lack of traffic. Mr. Seaburg also felt that whenever possible it was important to support two accesses for fire and police vehicles. Mr. Bolter said that there wasn't a significant difference in the time of fire trucks arrival with the proposed access considering the location of the existing fire stations. Mr. Fernelius commented that if fire protection was an issue to the City then it should have already asked for an easement and extended Shannon. He challenged whether the issue should revolve around Shannon having two accesses. There was a general discussion about whether the city had planned ahead of time to build a road through the area, the residents contended that they bought their property with the assumption that another cul-de-sac would be built. Mr. Bolter contended that a new road would become a major access to the high school and church to the north of Shannon Drive. Wayne Boysen, a resident on Shannon Drive, supported the other residents' contention that an influx of traffic would be problematic on Shannon Drive. He said he lived at the bottom of Shannon by the hazardous corner and already had problems keeping the existing traffic out of his yard. Mr. Boysen felt that if more traffic flowed through the area and weren't aware of the problem curve, he would be suffering the consequences. Tom Moore,supported Mr. Boysen in thinking that non-residents were unaware of the problem and therefore would be unprepared for the corner. Mr. Larsen responded that the staff agreed that the bottom of Shannon Drive was a difficult intersection but felt that one more route to the area would help ease the situation and spread the traffic out. He explained that in fairness to the whole neighborhood the extra route would be an important access for fire vehicles.and for general traffic circulation. Mr. Larsen said that if the Commission came to any decision, the staff would like a condition of parkland dedication and a developer's agreement. Len Fernelius said he thought the proposal was a close call and that no single issue could prevail. He felt that if no one public safety issue prevailed, it would be appropriate to approve the concept favored by the neighbors. Mr. Fernelius moved approval of the second proposal. i.e. building a cul-de-sac. Del Johnson seconded the motion. Upon roll the following voted: Ayes: Len Fernelius, James Bentley, Del Johnson Nays: Helen McClelland, Richard Seaberg, Bill Lewis, Mary McDonald Abstain: Gordon Johnson Edina Community Development and Planning Committee October 31, 1979 Page 4 The motion failed four tolthree. Helen McClelland moved the proposed subdivision with parkland dedication and developer' agreement with Shannon Drive being extended through, and that the excess right of way be vacated. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. The ayes carried. The motion passed. L-79-! and S-79-' Mr. U in area and was comprised Second Addition measured < A two acre unplatted part( A 1.6 acre parcel having i Findell and Clark. R-1 Single Family District and R-3 Multiple Family District to PRD - 3 Planned Residential District. .5 Findell Third Addition. Generally located south of west 70th Street and west of Cahill Road. trsen explained that the subject property measured 5.56 acres of three seperate parcels of property. Outlot A, Findell's approximately two acres and was the most westerly parcel. �l was located immediately to the east of Outlot A. `rontage on Cahill Road was the most easterly parcel. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that Outlot A and properties to the south were plated and given preliminary approval as a PRD -3 approximately two years ago. At that time, the Commission recommended approval of this development plan but requested that other small parcels in the area be combined to allow a more unified appearance and function in the area. Fourteen townhouse units were proposed for Outlot A and 64 units were proposed for the properties to the south in Findell Second Addition. He continued that the most easterly parcel which fronts on Cahill Road was presently zoned R-3 multiple residential. The property could be developed with approximately 16 units without the need for rezoning or plan approval from the City. The middle parcel was zoned R-1 and was developed with one single family dwelling. This parcel was controlled by one of the proponents. The p District zoning of the su of the properties and to ment building would be tw property would be develop spaces would be provided would be provided on the private drive from Cahill Mr. allowed density for the three component parcels. oponents agreed to pursue an overall Planned Residential ject property in order to provide a more logical development onform with the Commission's direction. The 16 unit apart - stories in height. The westerly two thirds of the d with thirty four townhouse units. Two enclosed parking or each unit and twenty seven exposed parking stalls ite. Access to the project would occur by way of a Road. irsen explained that the staff had suggested that the abject property would be based on the densities of the In this case, the R-3 parcel would be allowed 12 units per Edina Community Development and Planning Committee October 31, 1979 Page 5 acre in accordance with the zoning ordinance and Outlot A would be allowed seven units per acre based on plans previously approved by the Commission and Council. Density for the two acre parcel in the middle should be based upon the density reduction formula of the Southwest Edina Plan. Staff supported the proponents for drawing the parcels together, From a density standpoint, staff believed that the easterly parcel which was zoned R-3 should retain the density allowed by the zoning, i.e., ten units per acre. Staff believed that this parcel should not be reduced in density as a result of the owner's willingness to participate in an overall plan. Staff also believed that Outlot A (the most westerly parcel) would be allowed 14 units which was consistent with prior approvals. Mr. Larsen said that the staff analyzed the middle parcel in light of the density reduction policy and based on the review, found that the parcel should be allowed approximately 13 units. Therefore, the staff felt that a more appropriate density of the area would be 43 units. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the staff basically liked the proposal and thought that it worked well, but felt there were some problems with it. One problem was the proposed setbacks. According to ordinance requirements, a 35 foot setback was required from all property lines, the proposed plans illustrated 20 foot setback from the north, south and east property lines. The staff believed that the plans should be modified to comply with setback requirements. The second problem for the staff was the status of the private road in the project. The proponents would be requesting a two lot subdivision of the property which would create a lot for the 16 unit condominium building and a lot for the townhouse portion of the project. Therefore, the townhouse portion of the project would not have frontage on a public street and would have to rely on the private cross easement for access to Cahill Road. In addition, the condominium and the townhouse project would establish separate and independent homeowners associations. Consequently, ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the private road could be unclear for futur owners. Mr. Larsen suggested that an appropriate solution for these problems would be a dedication of a public road across the condominium lot. The staff believed that a 40 foot wide right of way should be dedicated for the road across the northerly extreme of the property and that the paved surface of the road should be 28 feet in width. A cul-de-sac would be located on the westerly terminus of the public road. According to ordinance requirements buildings would maintain a 35 foot setback from the new road right of way. Due to the nature of this road, the staff would support a variance request from this requirement. The staff believed that the above noted modifications should be pursued by the proponents. A preliminary zoning approval which may not be appropriate would be conditioned upon the above modifications and, a developer's agreement, final platting and a subdivision dedication which would be based on the middle tract of the subject property. Edina Community Development and Planning Committee October 31, 1979 Page 6 Mr. Fernelius asked if the proposed plan showed fifty units, and wondered if the proponents shouldn't redesign the plat to show a smaller density in order to be consistent with the staff's suggestions. He also wondered if the land had soil condition problems. Roger Findell said that there shouldn't be any soil problems since the ground was all high. Mr. Findell questioned why the road couldn't be private with perpetual easement to the back side. Mr. Larsen clarified that according to the ordinance., a buildable lot must have frontage on a public street. The proposed plan with two lots did not provide the townhouses with the required public access point. Mr. Fernelius moved delay of the approval until afore mentioned problems were resolved. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. S-79-16 City of Edina. Registered Land Survey for Morningside School. Mr. Larsen recalled that through a Community Development Block Grant, Morningside Elementary School was purchased with the idea of demolishing the building and adding the property to the parkland properties. Since that time, the City Council approved the sale of the new wing of the school for private school use. The City retained the property where the old school existed. The old school was demolished and the property was added to the park. The reason for the registered land survey would be to break off the portion where the new wing sits for the purpose of selling that land to the private school and to retain the rest of the tracts for the park's purpose. A question was raised as to why the Commission was involved in this issue. Mr. Larsen explained that in order to sell the school. the lot had to be divided and described. Since it was an unplatted piece of property it was necessary to get a cleaner division of the property. Therefore, the Commission had to approve the land survey. Gordon Johnson moved approval. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -79-9 Lot 1, Block 2, Replat of Part of Grandview Plateau. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the proponent was requesting a party wall divison for a two family dwelling located a 5200 Grandview Lane. The units were not being served by seperate sewer and water connections. and a swimming pool existed in the rear yard. The Health Department Ordinance stated that any pool that had access by more than one residence had to be licensed and built to public pool specifications. Mr. Larsen continued that if the Commission Edina Community Development and Planning Committee October 31, 1979 Page 6 Mr. Fernelius asked if the proposed plan showed fifty units, and wondered if the proponents shouldn't redesign the plat to show a smaller density in order to be consistent with the staff's suggestions. He also wondered if the land had soil condition problems, Roger Findell said that there shouldn't be any soil problems since the ground was all high. Mr. Findell questioned why the road couldn't be private with perpetual easement to the back side. Mr. Larsen clarified that according to the ordinance., a buildable lot must have frontage on a public street. The proposed plan with two lots did not provide the townhouses with the required public access point. Mr. Fernelius moved delay of the approval until afore mentioned problems were resolved. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. 5-79-16 City of Edina. Registered Land Survey for Morningside School. Mr. Larsen recalled that through a Community Development Block Grant, Morningside Elementary School was purchased with the idea of demolishing the building and adding the property to the parkland properties. Since that time, the City Council approved the sale of the new wing of the school for private school use. The City retained the property where the old school existed. The old school was demolished and the property was added to the park. The reason for the registered land survey would be to break off the portion where the new wing sits for the purpose of selling that land to the private school and to retain the rest of the tracts for the park's purpose. A question was raised as to why the Commission was involved in this issue. Mr. Larsen explained that in order to sell the school, the lot had to be divided and described. Since it was an unplatted piece of property it was necessary to get a cleaner division of the property. Therefore, the Commission had to approve the land survey. Gordon Johnson moved approval. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -79-9 Lot 1, Block 2, Replat of Part of Grandview Plateau. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the proponent was requesting a party wall divison for a two family dwelling located a 5200 Grandview Lane. The units were not being served by seperate sewer and water connections. and a swimming pool existed in the rear yard. The Health Department Ordinance stated that any pool that had access by more than one residence had to be licensed and built to public pool specifications. Mr. Larsen continued that if the Commission Edina Community Development and Planning Committee October 31, 1979 Page�7 approved the division, an agreement would be made for seperate sewer and water connections and the pool would be fenced for use by one family only, or upgraded for public pool standards. Bill Lewis stated that he would like to see the agreements before he brought action on the division. Mr. Larsen clarified the location of the pool to the Commission and let the Commission know that the pool was close to standards already, but the fencing would have to be upgraded somewhat and then inspected by the City and licensed. There was a general discussion by the Commission as to whether the proposal should or should not be approved with all the attached contingencies. It was brought up that the owner was not present to speak in his behalf. Gordon Johnson moved to continue the proposal; Jim Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye, the motion carried. LD -79-10 That part of the North 955.5 feet of the East 23.36 acres of Government Lot 2, Section 9, Township 116, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Craig Larsen explained to the Commission that approval was recommended on September 5, 1979, of a plat entitled One Corporate Center Phase III, located west of Metro Drive and south of Nine Mile Creek. The proponent agreed to dedicate a 2.5 acre tract of land adjoining Nine Mile Creek. The City Council approved this plat and dedication. Mr. Larsen presented the lot division proposal in order to provide suitable legal description and new parcel for the property which is to be dedicated to the City. Mary McDonald moved that the Commission approve the lot division. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye, the motion to approve the lot division carried. III. Next Meeting Date: November 28, 1979 IV. Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted. AIT11A 5�/JIU4 Deborah Strand, Secretary