HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 11-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M.
E15INA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, Richard Seaberg, David Runyan, James
Bentley, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland
Members Absent: Len Fernelius, Mary McDonald
Staff Present: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner; Harold Sand, Planner;
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer; Deoborah Schurman Strand, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes
Richard Seaberg moved that the minutes of the October 31, 1979,
Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. David Runyan seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved.
II. -Old Business:
Z-79-9 Findell and Clark. R-1 Single Family District, and
R-3 Multiple Family District to PRD -3 Planned
Residential District.
and
S-79-15 Findell Third Addition. Generally located South of
West 70th Street and West of Cahill School.
Craig Larsen reminded the Commission that the subject rezoning
and subdivision was heard by the Commission at its October 31, 1979, meeting. The
Commission continued the request and advised the proponent to prepare revised plans
which considered the setback, access and density problems exhibited by the first plans.
Mr. Larsen submitted the revised plans and explained that the
setbacks from all property lines had been increased to thirty five feet as required by
the ordinance, and forty foot public road right of way and turn around were delineated
to provide access to the town house portion of the project. He added that the units
had been reduced from fifty to forty-eight in the project. The plans showed that the
condominium building was raised one story in height providing for less lot coverage and
greater setbacks, thus the condominium would be three stories instead of two in height.
Mr. Larsen said that the staff reported on October 31, that
fourteen townhouse units had been originally approved for Outlot A (i.e. the most
westerly parcel) and in reviewing past plans, staff had determined that eighteen units
were approved. Thus, the proposed density conformed with past approvals, the existing
R-3 zoning on the most easterly parcel,*and the density clarification amendment. He
stated that the overall density for the project was 8.6 units per acre.
The staff felt that the proponents had responded favorably to ,
suggestions made at the last meeting. Thus, the staff recommended preliminary zoning and
plat approval with the conditions that l.final zoning was conditioned upon final
platting, 2.developer's agreement and 3.subdivision dedication which should be based
in staff's opinion only upon the two acre unplatted parcel located in the middle of the
subject property. .
There was a general discussion among the Commission and audience
to explain exactly which project was being discussed as some people in the audience thought
the Commission was discussing the Crossroads Development project. There were some question,
regarding the density, Mr. Larsen clarified that the density would be six to eight, general
discussion regarding the location of the property followed.
Co mmunity Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 2
Richard Seaberg moved approval of the preliminary zoning with
the three conditions as stated by the staff. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All
voted aye; .the motion carried.
LD -79-9 Lot 1, Block 2, Replat of Part of Grandview Plateau
located west of Grandview Avenue and south of West
52nd Street.
Craig Larsen reminded the Commission that the subject lot division
was continued from the October 31, 1979, meeting. At that time, the staff reported that
separate sewer and water connections were not provided to the subject two family
dwellings. He stated that according to ordinance requirements, such connections must be
provided as a condition to a lot division. He informed the Commission that the Building
Construction Appeals Board could waive this requirement upon finding that a hardship
existed that would be caused by the physical character of and cost of complying with,
the connection requirement.
Mr. Larsen noted that the swimming pool was located in the
rear yard of the subject property. The pool was located directly behind one of the
units. According to health ordinances, the pool had to be either completely fenced and
assigned to one of the units or licensed and upgraded to multi -family standards.
Mr. Larsen said the staff recommended approval of the lot
division with the following conditions:
1.`" Separate sewer and water connection must be installed or a waiver from the require
obtained from the Building Construction Appeals Board.
2. The swimming pool must be entirely fenced and assigned to one of the units or licensed
and upgraded to multi family standards.
Mr. Johnson asked staff how the proponent could fence at this
time of year. Mr. Larsen stated that the proponent could possibly sign a bond
requiring a fence be built in the spring.
Richard Seaberg asked staff whether there was any probability
that the proponent could get separate sewer and water. Mr. Larsen acknowledged that it
was not very feasible.
The Commission discussed the necessity of liability for
the proponent, so that he would be protected legally.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the lot division with
the two conditions recommended by staff, stated above, and a condition that
a performance bond or another form of assurance is provided stating that construction
of the swimming pool will begin in the spring. David Runyan seconded the motion.
All voted aye; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 3
Z-79-8 Crossroads Development. R-1 Single Family to PRD -3
Planned Residential District.
Craig Larsen asked the Commission to recall September 5, 1979,
when the Commission reviewed preliminary plans for the subject property. The plans
proposed sixty four townhouse units for low and moderate income families and individuals.
The proponent received preliminary approval and a funding commitment from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development for this project.
On September 5, staff advised the Commission that the City
Council adopted a moratorium on all low and moderate income housing projects. The
moratorium was imposed to provide an opportunity for the Housing Committee to review
and report on low and moderate income housing in the City. The moratorium precluded
further consideration of the subject project. Therefore, the Commission deferred
action on the proponent's preliminary plans.
Mr. Larsen stated that on November 19, 1979, the City Council
reviewed the effect of the moratorium on the project. Since the proponent had
petitioned for rezoning and received funding commitments prior to the moratorium, the
Council believed that the proponent should be allowed to proceed with the petition
for rezoning. The Council, therefore, directed that the Commission proceed with
its review of the project.
September 5, 1979, the staff advised.the Commission..that.the
proponents had prepared a good site plan from a land use standpoint.. At this time,
staff reaffirmed this opinion. On September 5, 1979, the staff and Commission were
concerned about the number of enclosed parking spaces provided on the site. The
preliminary plans proposed .8 garage stalls per ten units, the plans continue to
show .8 stalls per ten units. The Commission suggested one stall per unit.
Henry Hyatt, developer for Crossroads, told the Commission
that the proposal was officially in the second stage of financing from HUD. He
indicated that the proposal which the Commission had seen twice, remained the same.
The only change was the rent, which would be $438.00 for two bedrooms and $480.00 for
a three bedroom unit, without the rental assistance. Some adjustments were made on
the income limits, i.e. $19,000 for a family of six; $15,000 for a family of
three. Mr. Hyatt reiterated his point that .8 garage stall per ten units was an
appropriate ratio. He indicated that he had no desire to make the development
contingent upon receiving that ratio but felt that .8 was a proper ratio supported by
data in other similar developments and recommended land use standards. He added
that he was anxious to move forward and wanted to resolve the questions remaining
on the preliminary aspects of the proposal. Mr. Hyatt observed that costs had
escalated in the months of waiting for the proposal to be approved.
Gordon Johnson said that he still felt there should be
more parking space, i.e. one stall per unit and asked Mr. Hyatt to show evidence
that would support his proposal of .8 stalls per ten units.
David Runyan expressed concern and disapproval of changing
the plans to include a one to one parking ratio, he felt that more parking would
increase mass on the site.
-Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 4
Mr. Hyatt introduced the Land Use Standards recommended by
the Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. He stated
that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the chief financing source for assisted
housing in the state, was recommending that no more than 50% garage parking be
provided, i.e. five garages per ten units in assisted developments. Gordon Johnson
asked why the Agency was recommending minimal garages. Mr. Hyatt explained that the
question was one of priorities. The developer could spend money on garages or provide
the best basic housing structure. The Agency found (once the economy and inflation
took its tole) that money would be better spent in the housing unit than the garage.
He said their statistics showed garage usage was less than one to one so that garages
being built were going to waste.
Bill Lewis raised the question as to how people in the area
could get anywhere without a car since the bus service was inadequate. Mr. Hyatt
responded that the number of parking spaces proposed met the ordinance requirements, the
issues was garage spaces. He said that the development would have a two to one
parking ratio. Mr. Lewis recognized that the development had adequate outdoor parking
but questioned the report's wisdom regarding indoor parking. Gordon Johnson pointed
out that most of the reports could be referring to a metropolitan area where busing
was convenient, but felt that cars would be essential to a housing development in the
suburbs..
Henry Hyatt used Yorkdale Homes in Edina to make the following
point. He informed the Commission that there were 90 units, 206 parking spaces and
only 87 cars parked thereat peak hours thus not every unit owned a car. Craig Larsen
noted that Yorkdale was on a better public transportation route. Mr. Hyatt told the
Commission that he owned a development in New Brighton and had observed only 9 cars
per 10 units in the assisted housing. He pointed out that the garages were only
80% utilized.
Mr. Hyatt introduced Bill Brusman from Northland Mortgage,
his mortager for the development and a former employee for the Minnesota Housing.
Finance Agency, who did a specific survey for Mr. Hyatt. Mr. Brusman explained the
survey stating that it was done to a number of developments outside the metropolitan
area. He found it difficult to determine the usage of garages from season to season
and depending on whether the garage was added into the rent. He said that the Agency's
experience showed only 50% of the garages were being rented. Bill Brusman found from
his own experience that garage usage was averaging 50% to 75%.
Henry Hyatt reiterated his view that the money would be
better spent on the housing units themselves.
Gordon Johnson raised the question as to where the garages
would go if the Commission requested a 1 to 1 ratio. Jack Bucksell, the architect for
the developer, said he'd have to alter the building types and,could possibly tuck the
garages under the apartments but this plan would cause more mass on the site.
Dick Seaberg wondered whether all the units would be subsidized.
Mr. Hyatt said that most would be subsidized but that they could rent 10% of the units
without subsidies.
Craig Larsen informed the Commission that the City of Edina had
to, come up with a plan by the end of the year for subsidized housing. He stated that
Community Development
November 28, 1979
Page 5
and Planning Commission
the Housing Committee saw the subject site as a good site, and thought consideration
of it would show goodfaith in meeting a portion of the goals set before the
Committee (i.e. being 720 units for families and the elderly). He stated that the
Committee had sent a letter to the City Council at the last meeting encouraging them
to consider this project.
Susan Johnson, a homeowner on Landam Lane, expressed her
concern over having a subsidized housing development in the area. She wondered if other
sites had been considered, and didn't understand why this piece of property was being
developed. Criag Larsen explained that there were few areas which could be developed
for multiple family housing and all possibilities were considered. A developer was
able to work his project appropriately into the area. Ms. Johnson added that all the
homes on Landam Lane werenew and thought that their property value would go down if low
income housing was developed in their area.
Mr. Hyatt responded to Ms. Johnson's concerns. He stated that
their development would be a quality development with materials that would not vary
greatly from those used in Landam Lane houses. He explained he'd been looking for
four years for a suitable site in Edina. He felt there were few alternatives to this
site in the Edina community.
The Commission explained to the home owners on Landam Lane that
the federal government suggests assisted housing projects. Bill Lewis clarified that
Edina was not forced to put in housing but if the City did not comply,with the
government's request then the City might possibly loose their federal grants. Richard
Seaberg added that the Commission was not meeting to consider whether Edina should or
should not have assisted housing. The Commission was only meeting to evaluate the
land use for that particular parcel. Helen McClelland added that the proponent had met
every ordinance except the parking, which was why the Commission was meeting, and to
decide whether the parcel of land should be used for multiple housing, i.e. a zoning
decision. A general discussion followed comparing Findell's project to the present
project.
Gordon Johnson addressed Mr. Brusman as to where the eleven
studies were taken to support the proponent's theory that .8 parking stalls were
sufficient. Mr. Brusman went through the studies to show each development's usage.
A discussion followed concerning the aspects of the studies and locations. Dave Runyan
discussed the option and looks of a tuck -under garage.
Mr. Hyatt explained the reason he was pressing for a .8 parking
ratio. He said that unlike Yorkdale Townhouses, this project would be a true townhouse
and more expensive to build, to build more garages would add on to the escalating costs.
Jack Bucksell pointed out differences between townhouses and apartments and showed
the Commission the development plans for Crossroads. Handicapp units were discussed.
Dick Seaberg explained -to Mrs. Johnson that she could go to
the City Council to air her feelings about the development. Mr. Larsen noted that if
the project was approved the City Council would meet December 17, 1979 to discuss the
development and told all that the Planning Department would send notices out to property
owners within a 500 foot radius of the property.
Mr. Seaberg moved to recommend preliminary approval with the
condition that each unit have one enclosed parking space. Del Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye; the motion passed.
Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 6
Z-79-10 Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family to PRD -3
Residential District.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that several
development proposals for the subject property have been considered during the past
year and a half. In August, 1978, the Commission granted preliminary approval for
forty one townhouses on the subject property which measured 6.1 acres in area. The
plan was not feasible after soil investigations. The proponents then petitioned .for
a rezoning of the subject property to 0-1 Office District. The petition was denied
by the Commission and City Council.
Subsequent to the consideration of the 0-1 proposal, the
City completed condemnation proceedings and acquired a 4.3 acre parcel of property
located westerly of the subject property. The parcel was acquired for Delaney
Boulevard and a storm water ponding area. The proponents and the City reached a
preliminary agreement on the addition of this parcel to the subject property.
Based upon the preliminary agreement, the proponents would acquire density credits
for the entire 4.3 acre parcel acquired by the City, even though only 1.25 acres
would be incorporated into the subject project.
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the proponents had
submitted'. new petition to rezone the property to PRD -3, Planned Residential District.`
The ei.ght`'Gondominium buildings would be three stories, containing eighty nine units
in -the subject property. The project would be accessible only from DelareyBoulevard.
1.$ parking stalls per unit would be provided by under building parking and .5 stalls
per unit would be provided by exposed parking. In the low area, located on the
east central portion of the site; a small pond would be developed.
The staff observed that the proponents had submitted an.
excellent plan, locating the buildings so as to minimize the alteration of the slopes
and wooded areas located on the perimater and west central portion of the site. Staff
pointed out that the development of the low area as a pond would provide an excellent
amenity for the project.
Staff recommended that the plan be modified to reduce the
number of curb cuts on Delaney Boulevard. Snaff noted that parking within the thirty
five foot setback from Delaney Boulevard would require variances. Mr. Larsen said
that the staff recommended preliminary approval with the conditions that 1. final
zoning was conditioned on final platting and 2. subdivision dedication.
There was a general discussion between Mr. Larsen and the
Commission in order to clarify where the thirty five setback was from Delaney Boulevard.
Gordon Johnson asked Jack Barron, developer for Braemar
Associates what he planned to do with the area between the street and parking lot.
Mr. Johnson wondered if Mr. Barron would be willing to berm that area. Mr. Barron
responded that he would be willing to.
Mr. Barron presented preliminary plats and informed the
Commission of his plan. He stated that he was trying to create a noise shadow from
Highway 494, and was trying to provide mostly underground parking. He pointed out
Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 7
that each unit had two parking spaces, exceeding the City ordinance, and only 22%
of the land coverage would be buildings. He indicated that the biggest problem he
had was external parking , since exterior parking meant that trees may have to be cut
down. Mr. Barron said he wanted to protect the natural environment, therefore he
added nine more interior parking units to the plan.
Mr. Barron stated that he reduced the entrances from Delaney
from four to two.
He presented the plans for each unit to the Commission and
explained the features of the layout. A general discussion followed of the units
and layout of the buildings.
David Runyan asked Mr. Barron if the City had checked out
his plans and okayed them, i.e. engineering, fire department, sewer and water,
building inspectors. Mr. Barron responded yes to all of the above.
Gordon Johnson moved approval subject to the contingencies
recommended by the staff, i.e, final zoning conditioned on final platting, subdivision
dedication and proper berm to be placed along Delaney Boulevard. James Bentley
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Z-79-11 Condor Corporation. R-1 Single Family to
PRD -3 Residential District.
Craig Larsen stated that the subject property measured
approximately sixteen acres in area and was bounded by Fabri-tek on the north
and Edina West Condominiums on the south. The site was shown in the Western Edina
Plan as a transitional area between industrial uses to the north and residential
uses to the south and east. The plan, in fact, designated one half the site for
industrial uses and one half for multiple residential uses.
Mr. Larsen pointed out that several years ago the Planning
Commission indicated that the most appropriate use for the site was multiple
residential. The Western Edina Plan was not ammended to designate this use, staff
had since advised prospective developers that multiple residential uses were
appropriate for the site.
In 1972, the Commission reviewed and approved a petition to
PRD -3 for this property.. The plans approved at the time delineated eight condominium
buildings containing a total of 180 units (i.e. 11.1 units per acre) with a total
building coverage of 15.4% and hard surface coverage of 13.1%. The plans were
approved by the City Council and the property was rezoned to PRD -3.
Following the rezoning, the developer did not proceed with
the project and a new owner acquired the property. In 1975, the new owner requested
that the property be zoned back to R-1, the Commission and Council agreed to this request.
Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 8
Mr. Larsen explained that the present proponent (Condor
Corporation) was requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 Planned Residential District for
the site. Condor Corporation is proposing three condominium buildings containing
a total of 162 units, 1.25 underground parking stalls per unit and .75 exposed stalls
per unit are provided.
Mr. Larsen continued that the basic concept of the development
was to take advantage of the sloping topography of the site which grades from a high
of 920 at Lincoln Drive to 870 at the easterly property line. The most westerly
building would have a first floor elevation of 895. Thus, the three buildings would
"step" down the slope in order to.provide maximum views. The buildings would be
oriented toward Nine Mile Creek and public open space rather than toward the
industrial uses to the North. The proposed building elevations and orientations as
well as the locations of parking areas and access roads on the northerly portion of
the site would also lessen the project's impact on Edina West Condominiums to the
South.
The site was extensively regraded by a mining operation in
1974, thus, the easterly two thirds of the site was largely devoid of vegetation.
The proponent was attempting to use the more level portions of the site for building
placement in order to preserve the remaining topographical features. The small
pond located on the south property line and the floodplain on the easterly portion
of the site would be preserved.
From a density standpoint, the proponent was requesting
approximately ten units per acre or a reduction of one unit per acre from the 1972 Is
project and two units per acre from the Western Edina Plan maximum of twelve units
per acre. The proponent reviewed the subject property in light of the density
clarification plan adopted by the Council in 1975. Based upon this review, the
proponent found an allowed density of 9.4 units per acre which would allow
approximately 150 units on the site.
Staff pointed out that proposed multiple residential use
of the property conformed with the spirit of the Western Edina Plan and part direction
from the Commission, and that the proposed plan of three condominium buildings which
step down the slope is a proper design concept for the site.
Staff commented that the present proposal provided for
reduced density, reduced building coverage (15.4% compared to about 13%) and reduced
hard surface coverage (13.1% compared to about 12%). The proponents also preserved
the natural features of the site, i.e. the pond and floodplain area.
Staff advised some modifications to the proposal. 1. Staff
thought that the access road along the northerly portion of the site should be a
public road. This would be appropriate in that the proponent would request a three
lot subdivision of the property which would land lock two lots if a public road were
not provided. Staff suggested a fifty foot right of way for this road, consequently,
some adjustments would be necessary to achieve the required thirty five foot setback
from the right of way. 2. The most easterly building should be adjusted to provide
a thirty five foot setback from the south property containing approximately 150
units. Thus, the Commission should consider the limitation of twelve units from the
project. Although the buildings were desirably oriented toward Nine Mile Creek,
Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 9
staff would encourage the proponent to modify the straight alignments of the buildings
and parking areas in order to lessen the Visual impact of the project.
Staff recommended approval based on the afore mentioned
suggestions and the following conditions: 1. Final zoning conditioned on final
platting. 2. Final zoning conditioned on submission of an acceptable overall
development plan. 3. A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.
Final platting would be conditioned on : 1. Subdivision dedication. 2. Developer's
Agreement.
Linda Fisher representing the developer, Condor Corporation,
introduced herself and the following people to the Commission: Greg du'Monceau x,
architect; Jim Smuda, Condor Corporation.
Ms. Fisher began her presentation by submitting visual
graphics to illustrate her points. She informed the Commission of the site plan
location and indicated such on the graphics. She stated that the new plans she
was submitting were in conjunction with the recommendations of the staff, i.e. the
plans would show a public road. Ms. Fisher elaborated that the proposed
condominium was designed to keep existing topography and vegetation and was oriented
away from Edina West Condominiums. She continued by pointing out the recreational
areas and added that the plans met all the requirements of the planned residential
district.
Ms. Fisher stated that through locations of the units, road
and building designs, disturbance of the grading and vegetation area would be
minimized. The developers plan to add more vegetation as a buffer from Edina West.
Ms. Fisher continued that they planned for 162 units which
would be approximately 10 units per acre on the sixteen acre site which was
consistent with the density allowable under the Planned Residential District Ordinance.
She pointed out that it was consistent with the Western Edina Land Use Plan,
medium density, multiple residential designation which allowed the maximum of 12
dwellingsper acre. Ms. Fisher observed that the proposed development was less dense
with substantially less site coverage than other developments that had been approved
by the City. She asked the Commission to recall that in 1973, the City Council
approved a rezoning of the property, the same site, from R-1 to PRD -3 to allow an 11.1
unit per acre development that had substantially greater coverage than the present
proposal. There were eight buildings, twenty four unit and twenty one unit
buildings. The developer calculated that their building coverage was approximately
12% while their surface coverage was 15.4%. She noted that the surrounding
developments, i.e. Edina West and Founiainaoods were approximately 12 units per
acre density, which is greater than the present project.
Linda Fisher responded to a question which was raised by
the staff concerning the effect of a density reduction ammendment to the western area
plan in the South and Southwest Edina area plan; she stated that she had reviewed
the density report and found no definitions or guidelines to interpret the report.
A question that arose in the proponent's mind was what good would be achieved by
using the formula. She pointed out that if the formula was intended to reduce the
impact on the environment it may not 'achieve its purpose. One could comply with
Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 10
the density formula and reduce the number of units on the site, have larger individuate
units instead of the average, have a larger building and end up with greater site
coverage and still have fewer density units. Ms. Fisher clarified that raw density is
not always, especially in this case, a significant environmental factor.
To summarize the presentation, Ms. Fisher stated that the
proposal was consistent with the ordinance and the Western Edina Land Use Plan; it
is consistent with the findings of the Planning Commission and City Council which
they must make in finally approving a development; it has preserved and put to
use vegetation and topography; it provides open space and recreational amenities; and
it has no significant impact on the surrounding properties.
.Following the presentation, there were some general questions
regarding parking location, interior/exterior ratios. Greg du'Monceaux stated that
the proposal had 1.25 interior parking stalls and .75 exterior stalls.
Craig Larsen added that the proponent had not met the thirty
five foot setback from the street on the north end and the south side. The
proponents acknowledged that they did not have adequate setbacks but would adjust
the setback to conform to the ordinance.
Del Johnson noted that the building on the South West corner
was ver close to Edina West Condominiums and asked for the proponent's response.
Mr. du'Monceaux noted that they were aware of that problem and had discussed different
options, e.g, possibly swinging the angle of the building to decrease the distance
between the two buildings or reducing the length of the building and an additional
story be added to the building. Eli Bud, a member of the audience, wondered what
the possibilities were of Condor building a fourth story. Staff indicated that the
four story proposal would not conform to the Western Edina Plan.
A resident of Edina West, name unknown, asked the proponents
what the distance was between building A and B, the response was 110 to 125 feet. The
resident responded that he was concerned that the proposed building would block
his view. Mr. de Monceaux pointed out that Edina West was designed so that all its
buildings faced that property line, and the proponent had done his best to design the
buildings to minimize the impact between the two buildings while trying to maintain
the existing topography.
David Runyan pointed out that the proponents were meeting
requirements, doing everything correctly, but felt the building was not appealing to
look at since it was 500 feet long. Greg du'Monceaux responded that several schemes
were considered that had more shape but found that they were inconsistent with
characteristics of the site. Jim Smuda said that the angle of the building was
significant in that the minimum curve to the building would minimize the massiveness.
A general discussion followed regarding the size of the
units and length of the buildings.
Mr. Bud, owner of an Edina West condominium wondered if the
proponent planned to put ventilation mechanisms on the roof. Mr. Smuda responded
yes, but mechanical equipment would be screened by a parapit.
Ccramunity Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 11
Bill Edgeton from Edina West stated that his biggest concern
was the topography of the land and the closeness of his building to the proponent's
building C. A general discussion followed concerning the density of the building.
Bob Peterson from Edina West echoed Mr. Edgeton's concern regarding the closeness of
the building. Linda Fisher and Greg du Monceaux both stressed their point to follow
the topography of -the land. More discussion followed considering the possibility
of swinging or pivoting Building C to minimize the distance or lowering the building.
Dick Seaberg asked Frank Hoffman if there would be traffic
problems since most of the traffic would flow onto Vernon. Mr. Hoffman said there
shouldn't be any problem on Vernon.
Helen McClelland moved that the zoning be changed to PRD -3
with the following conditions: that there would be a public road with a 50 foot
right of way on the northern edge of the property as the staff requested; that the
most easterly building be adjusted so that it had the proper setbacks from both
public road and the southern boundary; that the density be limited to 150 units;
final zoning is -conditioned on final platting; final zoning conditioned on submission
of an acceptable overall development plan; grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District; subdivision dedication and developer's agreement. Gordon
Johnson made an ammendment that all twelve units come off of Building C. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All -voted aye;. -;he motion carried.
LD -79-11 Lot 7, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition
Generally located west of Gleason and north
of West 78th Street.
Craig Larsen informed the Commission that the proponent
was requesting a party wall division of a two family dwelling located at 7709-11
Tanglewood Court. He added that separate sewer and water connections had been
provided.
Staff recommended approval of the lot division.
Helen McClelland moved that the Commission approve the lot
division. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -79-12 Lot 33, Block 1, Oscar Roberts First Addition.
Generally located south of west 72nd Street and
southwest of Hearthton Circle.
Mr. Larsen explained that the proponent requested a party
wall division of a two family dwelling. Separate sewer and water connections were
provided.
Staff recommended approval of the lot division.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
November 28, 1979
Page 12
LD -79-13 Outlot B, Smisek Addition, Lot 3, Block 2,
Smisek Addition. Generally located north of
west 78th Street and west of Delaney Boulevard.
Mr. Larsen stated that the City acquired necessary right of
way from the subject lot in conjunction with the Delaney Boulevard construction.
The City agreed to deed a small portion of Outlot B., Smisek Addition (city owned)
to the owner of the subject lot in exchange for the right of way dedication.
He informed the Commission that the staff recommended
approval of the subject lot division.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the lot division, Del
Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -79-14 Part of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Nine Mile North Second
Addition. Generally located west of Parkwood
Lane and south of Dovre Drive.
Craig Larsen informed the Commission that the proponent
requested a party wall division for a two family dwelling. Separate sewer and water
connections were provided.
Mr. Larsen indicated that staff recommended approval of the
lot division.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division, Jim
Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -79-15 Lot 1 and Part of Lot 2, Nine Mile North Second
Addition. Generally located west of Parkwood
Lane and south of Dovre Drive.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission that the proponent requested
a party wall division for a two family dwelling. Separate sewer and water connections
existed.
Staff recommended approval of the lot division.
Jim Bentley moved approval of the division, Helen McClelland
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
III. Next Meeting Date: January 2, 1980, at 7:30 p.m.
IV. Adjournment: 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
D&mtb �diwlipua 4od
Deborah-Schurman Strand, Secretary