Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 07-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1980 AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, James Bentley, Len Fernelius MEMBERS ABSENT: David Runyan and Richard Seaberg STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Joyce Repya, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes Chairman Bill Lewis moved for approval of the minutes from the July 2, 1980 Community Development and Planning Commission meeting. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Old Business Z-79-12 Dewey Hill III. R-1 Single Family Dwelling to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. S-80-13 Dewey Hill Third Addition. Generally located north of West 78th Street and west of Glasgow Drive. Mr. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the preliminary plans for this project were considered by the Commission on two occasions earlier this year. On January 30, 1980, the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning at the proponent's request to allow the proponent to proceed to the Council to secure earthmoving permits during favorable weather conditions. Following the grant of these permits by the Council, the proponent again returned to the Commission on April 2, 1980, and presented revised plans. On that occasion , the Commission recommended preliminary approval subject to the receipt of a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the propriety of the rezoning. Mr. Hughes added that since April 2, 1980, the Council has reviewed this matter on several occasions. He noted that a copy of the findings of fact, copies of the Council minutes, and legal opinions relative to this matter are enclosed for reference. Some modifications to the preliminary plans were made during the course of the Council hearings. Most notably, the northerly building on the east side was reduced in height by one story and in length by 50 feet, thereby resulting in the elimination of nine dwelling units. On July 7, 1980, the City Council granted preliminary approval of the requested rezoning to PRD -3. Community Development and Planning Commission July 30, 1980 Page 2 Mr. Peter Jarvis, from the firm B.R.W., represented the proponent Laukka and Associates. Mr. Jarvis presented the final site plan including the changes which had been made since January of 1980. Mr. Jarvis noted that the number of units has been changed from 120 to 114 by changing Building #5 from a three- story unit to two -stories, and doing away with the northerly 25 feet of the building. All the other elements of the site plan were identical to the plan presented in January. Mr. Jarvis further explained how the project would unfold in terms of its grading and landscaping by means of a cross-section (1/4 inch scale) which built upon the existing grade showing the northerly half of the east side of the project. Mr. Jarvis pointed out that the new rough grade line will come up 7 feet and be lower than most of the buildings, thus lowering the cars in relation to the first floor units. On top of the rough grade the roadway will be built up an additional 9 inches to a foot. A berm will be developed around the end of the cul-de-sac and along the east property line which will screen the roadway from the residents on Glasgow Drive. Mr. Jarvis stated that the landscaping would heavily emphasize the natural materials of the area and by means of his pictoral over -lay, pointed out the size, placement and shape of the materials the day they would be put in. Noting that 8-12 foot conifers, 14-16 foot clump and overstory trees, 8-10 foot ornamentals and 3-4 foot flowering shrubs would blend harmoniously with the terrain and provide an appealing view for all surrounding residents. Mitchell Kirchbaum, Attorney for the Glasgow Drive Homeowner's Association noted that the homeowner's are still opposed to the project because of the density aspect and their failure to be heard at the Dewey Hill I and II hearings. He added that prior to the July 7, 1980 Council meeting there were a series of meetings between the members of the Glasgow Drive Homeowner's Association and Laukka and Associates to discuss possible compromises which could be made. The homeowner's left these meetings with the feeling that building #5 would be removed. Larry Laukka clarified for the Commission the events of his three meetings with the homeowner's and emphasized that no promises were made to remove the fifth building. He noted that his attempt was to work together with the homeowner's to modify the plan for a sensitive and appealing outcome. Len Fernelius asked whether single family homes built on the building #5 site would have a much different coutour. Mr. Laukka informed the Commission that any homes built on the site would be equally as tall as the proposed buildings. Community Development and Planning Commission July 30, 1980 Page 3 Bob Clark, a member of the Glasgow Drive Homeowner's Association stated that the homeowner's assumed. that Mr. Laukka was removing building #5 due to the lapse of time between meetings 2 and 3. Mr. Clark also noted a concern of the height of the buildings, garbage trucks, and service vehicles which would fre- quent the development. Helen McClelland questioned whether an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan should be made a condition to the zoning approval. Gordon Hughes advised against the amendment as a condition for approval, but added that it should be undertaken at a future date. Gordon Johnson moved for approval of the zoning and subdivision reauest subject to the recommendations and conditions in the staff report. Del Johnson seconded the motion. James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson and Mary McDonald voted aye. Helen McClelland voted nay. The motion carried. III. New Business Z-80-4 Hansen and Martinson. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and east of Lincoln Drive. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 1-1/2 acres in area. It is bound on the west by property recently rezoned and subdivided as two family dwelling lots. It is bound on the east and north by the Fountainwoods Apartments. The subject property is characterized by relatively steep slopes along its northerly extreme. The west- erly and northerly portions of the site are wooded. The Western Edina Plan designates this area for medium density multiple residential. The Plan notes that such areas can accomodate 5-12 dwelling units per acre. By way of the 1975 density reduction policy, the allowed density could be reduced to six units per acre. The proponents are reauesting a rezoning to PRD -3 Plan- ned Residential District. A preliminary site plan has been submitted in support of this reauest. This site plan proposes nine townhouse units arranged in three clusters. Access to all units would be via a private drive from Vernon Avenue. Mr. Hughes noted that the preliminary plans illustrate a design concept whereby garages are semi-detached from the units, thus creating spacious and extensively landscaped courts and entrances. Community Development and Planning Commission July 30, 1980 Page 4 This concept results in relatively deep units which encroach on the required 35 foot perimeter setback area. Setbacks ranging from 21-39 feet are proposed and therefore variances for this plan would ultimately be required. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that from a density standpoint, the proposed plan certainly complies with the 1975 density clarification policy. Likewise, the proposed use is com- patible with R-2 uses to the west and apartment uses to the north. The staff believes that the proposed site plan is gen- erally attractive and provides desirable building orientations. The proposed driveway access to Vernon Avenue is properly located from a safety as well as a design standpoint. The design concept of using semi-detached garages to provide added privacy as well as attractive courts and entrances appears desirable. As noted earlier, the proposed plan would require set- back variances. In the opinion of the staff, the PRD section of the ordinance did not anticipate the development of relatively small sites such as this. In this case, the literal application of the 35 foot setback requirement reduced the actual buildable area of this 1-1/2 acre site down to less than 30,000 square feet. Likewise, the dimensions of the lot are significantly reduced. Staff supports the concept illustrated by the plan whereby the greatest variances are located on the north and east sides of the site. These areas abut the Fountainwood Apartments which have generous setbacks from the property line. Mr. Hughes further stated that the staff's criticism of the preliminary plan is focused on the northerly four units. First, although the semi-detached garages are desirable, they do contribute to a very narrow drive aisle in front of units 6-9. This problem could be compounded by vehicles parked in front of the garages for these units. The Fire Department has reviewed this situation and reports that public safety vehicle access could be impared. Secondly, units 6 and 8 are located on that portion of the site having very steep slopes. The proposed floor plans and orientation of these dwellings do not appear to be sympathetic with the topography of this area. Mr. Hughes concluded that the staff would recommend preliminary approval provided that modifications of units 6-9 are undertaken which address the above stated concerns. Approval is recommended with the following conditions. 1) Final zoning is conditioned on acceptable overall development plans and the grant of the required setback variances. 2) Final zoning is conditioned on final platting. Community Development and Planning Commission July 30, 1980 Page 5 Mr. Bob Martinson, the proponent advised the Commission that the complex configuration of the site makes the utilization of a small segment difficult. Due to setback requirements, the southerly corner of the property is virtually unusable. After developing numerous plans they had come up with a most desirable living environment. By utilizing an internal courtyard, the plan separates the garage from the dwelling unit and establishes a focal point for the living space in the unit. Mr. Martinson pointed out that some of the problems identified by the staff report can be overcome with further design. He added that by shifting units slightly, they will be able to open the roadway space from an 18 foot area to a 24 foot area, facilitating the maneuvering of emergency and service vehicles. Gordon Johnson asked how the buildings in the Habitat would be affected by this project. Gordon Hughes advised the Com- mission that the setbacks were adequate and the project did not impose upon the Habitat or the Fountainwood Apartments. Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the build- ings on the site with an emphasis on limiting the congestion. Len Fernelius moved to continue the proposal for one month. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. Mr. Fernelius also noted that the elimination of one unit may be appropriate to lessen the apparent congestion on the site. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -80-10 Lot 2, Block 1 Gleason Fifth Addition. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent is requesting a party wall division of an existing two family dwelling. He noted that individual sewer and water connections have been provided. Staff recommended approval of the lot division. Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -80-11 Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Indian Hills Thompson Replat. Mr. Hughes stated that the owners of the subject properties are requesting a lot division to realign their common lot line. This division is necessary in that a portion of a new driveway for Lot 3 was inadvertently placed on Lot 2. Required building setbacks will be maintained following the division. Community Development and Planning Commission July 30, 1980 Page 6 Staff recommended approval of the lot division. Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye; the, motion carried. IV. Next Meeting Date: September 3, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment: 8:55p.m. AGENDA EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 3, 1980, at 7:30_ p.m. Edina City Hall Council Chambers I. Approval of the Minutes: July 30, 1980 II. Old Business: Z-80-4 Hansen and Martinson. R-1 Single Family Dwelling to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and east of Lincoln Drive. Ill. New Business: Z-79-8 Crossroads Development. R-1 Single Family to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road and east of Cahill School. S-80-13 One Corporate Center, Phase V. Generally located west of Metro Boulevard and north of 74th Street. LD -80-12 Lot 1, Block 6, Braemar Hills Ninth Addition. LD -80-13 Lot 2, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition IV. Next Meeting Date: October 1, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. V. Adjournment