Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 07-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill. Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, John Palmer and Leonard Ring MEMBERS ABSENT: Del Johnson and John Skagerberg STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works/Engineering Joyce Repya, Secretary I. OLD BUSINESS: Z-81-2 Landico, Inc. C-4 to PRD -5. Generally located west of France Avenue and south of Morninqside Road. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that this request was considered at the May 27, 1981, meeting. At that time the Commission recommended prelim- inary rezoning of the property to PRD -5. The Council subsequently granted preliminary approval. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent has now returned with an over- all development plan for the project and is requesting final rezoning approval. As with the preliminary plans, the final plans illustrate an eight unit condo- minium building. This building will be two stories in height and would resem- ble row houses. Two underbuilding parking stalls per unit are provided which exceed ordinance requirements. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the overall development plan provides final site plans, landscape plan, grading plan, and elevation drawings. Utility plans are not necessary in that all public utilities are in place. Staff believes that the proposed project is an excellent reuse of this site. The project conforms in all respects with the draft Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff recommends final rezoning approval. General discussion ensued regarding the proposed development. Mr. Howard Goltz, architect with Landico, Inc. advised the Commission that they are hoping to have the building under construction by the fall. Mary McDonald moved approval of the final development plans. Len Fer- nelius seconded the motion. The following voted - Aye: Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, John Plamer, and Leonard Ring; Nay: None; Abstain: Gordon Johnson (due to late arrival). The motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS: S-81-7 Alvin Leonard Estates. Generally located south of Foxmeadow Lane, north of Pine Grove Road and east of Blake Road and generally described as the North 21 Rods of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the North168.5' of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 117, Range 21. Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 72 acres in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. The proponent's home is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The property has access to both Blake Road and W. Highwood Drive. The City owns the property abutting the subject property to the north. This property is described as Lots 1 through 7, Block 2, Whiteman Addition. This property was purchased approximately five years ago pursuant to a park and open space bond issue referendum. The property has never been improved for park purposes. Mr. Hughes observed that during the past few months, the proponent and the City have discussed the concept of a land exchange. These discussions con- sidered the conveyance of Lot 7 Whiteman Addition from the City to the propon- ent. In exchange, the proponent would convey to the City that portion of his property lying between Blake Road and W. Highwood Drive extended. As a result of the trade, the City's acreage (exclusive of water area) would be de- creased from about 512 acres to 4 acres. The proponent's acreage would be similarly increased. This concept has been considered by the Park Board. The Board agrees with the exchange provided that it include monetary con- sideration. Therefore, the proposed subdivision assumes completion of the land exchange. The proposed subdivision illustrates 11 single family lots. Lot 7 would be retained for the existing dwelling. Outlot A would be conveyed to the City. Lot sizes range from 15,500 square feet to 74,600 square feet. As proposed, W. Highwood Drive would be extended northerly to intersect Foxmeadow Lane. A new Roadway, Foxmeadow Circle would then be extended easterly to serve the proposed lots. Mr. Hughes stated that the proponent has submitted a preliminary grading and utility plan. The grading plan illustrates road grades of 8-10%. The utility plan illustrates the need for a sanitary sewer lift station. Staff agrees with the proposed subdivision plan. It is believed that the proposed lots fit very comfortably on the site and should provide excel- lent home sites. Staff also agrees upon the concept of extending W. Highwood Drive to serve the subdivision. The proposed land trade as recommended by the Park Board appears to improve the potential for the park and enhances the subdivision. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff is concerned with the need for a lift station and the proposed road grades. The plans illustrate extending sani- tary sewer to the south to W. Highwood Drive. Staff has determined that extending the sewer instead to the north to Foxmeadow Lane would eliminate the need for a lift station. Staff has advised the proponent's engineers of Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 3 this fact and they have agreed to revise the plans. The grading plan illu- strates 8-10% road grades. Staff has asked the proponent's engineers to increase the elevation of the low point on Foxmeadow Circle from 924 to 930. This would diminish the road grade substantially. The proponent's engineers have likewise agreed to this suggestion. Mr. Hughes concluded noting that Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the following requirements: 1. Completion of land exchange agreements whigh will include subdivision dedication. 2. Developer's Agreement 3. Conservation Restriction 100 feet upland from Mirror Lakes 4. Plan revisions (as -described above) Mr. Peter Jarvis of BRW, representing the proponent advised the Com- mission that the proposed net density for the development, not including the lake, is 1.3 houses per acre, each lot averaging 32,500 square feet. In comparison, Mr. Jarvis pointed out that all of the lots in the Whiteman Addition to the north and east of the subject property average 3.2 houses per acre, each lot averaging 17,600 square feet (with the exception of Marsh Everson's 2.8 acres) . • Noting further comparisons, Mr. Jarvis stated that Mirror Lake Ridge Addition further north consists of 8 lots averaging 22,500 square feet per lot; Idlywood, south and west of the subject property consists of 15 lots aver- aging 19,100 square feet per lot; and Gray tower, directly south of the subject parcel consists of 6 dots averaging 49,000 square feet per lot, being the only plat of record surrounding the property that has larger lots. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the lots. Mr. Jarvis pointed out that due to sanitary sewer restraints, the home on Lot 5 will have to be built as close to the road as possible to avoid the necessity of a lift station. In response to a question from John Palmer regarding the conservation restriction, Mr. Hughes explained that the conservation restriction would state that there could be no structures or accessory buildings built, and no removal of vegetation. The intent being to prevent a person from removing all the trees along the shoreline of the lake. Responding to an inquiry from Ms. McClelland, Leonard Ring. who is also a member of the Park Board explained that the advantage of the land trade from the park standpoint lies in the fact that the present park is not large enough for anything but a tennis court. The new location would be closer to the road providing for better access in addition to being bigger. He added that presently, the Park Board does not have any plans to develop the park. Gordon Hughes advised the Commission that in 1974-75, the Open Space Committee considered the acquisition of sites in the City. the subject park was selected as an active park. It was felt that there was a need for an active facility in the area. However, since the bond issue was passedand the property was acquiree}, the City also acquired a 25 acre park further to the northwest known as Van Valkenberg Park. It was felt that Van Valkenberg Park has replaced much of the need for active recreation initially designated for the subject park. Community Development July 29, 1981 Page 4 and Planning Commission Mr. Hughes added that there is monetary consideration involved with this park land. If the Park Board could end up with this park and develop it as well, and develop others in the area, it made sense to them. An unidentified resident of Lot 2, Idlywood, south of Outlot A voiced concern regarding the plans for the area. She stressed the fact that they now enjoy a very secluded area and can't see the point in extending W. High - wood Drive to the north when there is an inlet from Blake Road just a few lots north of the City lot. Mr. Vincent Nierste, 6108 Foxmeadow Lane explained that several years ago he attended a Park Board meeting where very elaborate plans were pre- sented that included the acquisition of a great deal of the Leonard Estate. At that time the issue was shelved because there was not enough room for a park with baseball diamond and the normal park equipment. Tennis courts were discussed at that meeting and Mr. Nierste noted that he was totally against having tennis courts in his front yard. Mr. Nierste then asked for a delay of this issue to allow the neighbors to discuss the plans with the Park Board and the Planning Department. Following a brief discussion, •Gordon Hughes advised the Commission that the Park Board has considered and recommends the land exchange with Mr. Leonard. Mr. Rudy Trones, 6100 Foxmeadow Lane pointed out that due to lack of notification regarding the meeting, he felt unprepared to plan a counter pro- posal. He noted that the loss of the present City property that extends down to Mirror Lake would be unfortunate and requested a continuance of this item. Mr. Hughes advised the audience of the notification procedures as set down by the Zoning Ordinance; i.e. the proponent posts a sign on his property 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing the preliminary proposal. A notice of public hearing is then sent to property owners within 200 feet of the subject parcel 10 days prior to the first hearing by the City Council. A Notice of Public Hearing is also published in the Edina Sun 10 days prior to the City Council meeting. Responding to an inquiry from the audience, Mr. Hughes stated that the consideration for Outlot 7 includes Outlot A plus $150,000. He also noted that the park property would equal 8 buildable lots. John Palmer stated that he felt somewhat in the dark, viewing a proposal from 2 developers, (Mr. Leonard and the Park Board) one of which was not present. He expressed a desire to hear from the Park Board regarding their plans for the park. Mr. Marsh Everson, 6000 Foxmeadow Lane explained that many people feel the existing park is not used, however it is used for access to the lake for skiing in the wintertime, and children play in the area, it is a wonderful nature area. Mary McDonald opined that there are questions that need to be answered by the hark Board regarding the plans for the park. Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 5 Responding to an inquiry from John Palmer, Mr. Hughes explained that from a legal standpoint, Mr. Erickson has advised Staff that the City does have the right to convey the park property to Mr. Leonard, noting that the purchase made of the Whiteman property was unrestricted. Helen McClelland moved the continuance of this item for one month to allow for more information and input. James Bentley seconded the motion. Peter Jarvis clarified for the Commission that the Park Board initiated the conveyance of the park property with Mr. Leonard. However, Mr. Leonard is prepared to develop his property without the land trade and is perfectly confortable with that possibility. Mr. Jarvis also noted that Mr. Leonard is somewhat pressured to develop his property, for within 6 months he must hook his house up to the City sewer. It would be logical to hook his home up to the City sewer in conjunction with the development of the property. Gordon Johnson stated that from his point of view, he is interested in what is planned for the park, in addition to the development of the property. He noted that he has several questions regarding the park that need to be resolved: 1. Should W. Highwood Drive be extended, and 2. If there is going to be a park there, is it going to come off of Blake or W. Highwood? In response to Ms. McClelland's motion and Mr. Bentley's second the following voted: Aye - Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, James Bentley, John Palmer, and Leonard Ring; Nay - Leonard Fernelius. The motion carried. S-81-8 Cecere Addition. Generally located east of Ryan Avenue, west of Parnell Avenue and south of West 65th Street extended, and generally described as. Lot 2, Block 18, Normandale. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property is a developed single family lot which measures 29,470 square feet in area. The existing dwelling is located on the west end of the lot and fronts on Ryan Avenue. The proponent has submitted a subdivision plan whereby the existing lot would be divided to create a new lot fronting on Parnell Avenue. The new lot would measure 14,900 square feet in area. A lot measuring 14,570 square feet in area would be retained for the existing dwelling. The proposed lots comply in all respects with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed subdivision is identical to the divisions approved in past years for all other lots located between Parnell and Ryan, as well as other lots in the area. Proposed lot sizes are compatible with other lots in the area. No unusual condition such as drainage problems or steep topography are apparent. Therefore, Staff recommends approval conditioned on subdivision dedication. Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 6 Following a brief discussion, John Palmer moved approval of the proposed subdivision. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. S-81-9 Oak Ridge of Edina. Generally located west of Highway 100 and south of West 66th Street and generally described as the Northeast '1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 116, Range 21. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 6.5 acres in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. An existing single family dwelling is located in the northeastern corner of the property. The property is bordered on the east by the frontage road of T.H. 100 and on all other sides by single family uses. The proponent is requesting approval of an eleven lot single family plat of the property. One of the lots would be retained for the existing dwelling. The average proposed lot size is approximately 21,500 square feet. This average is skewed somewhat by Lots 7,8 and 9 which measure 43,000, 45,700 and 32,000 square feet respectively. Mr. Hughes explained that access to the property would be by way of a cul de sac from the frontage road. This cul de sac is apparently located to provide a second means of access to the existing dwelling. The proposed street exhibits 12 percent grades to the first cul de sac and 10 percent grades to the terminus of the road. Although public watermains are located in the frontage road, public sanitary sewer is not. Therefore, the proponent is suggesting the acquisition of an easement to provide sewer access to Danens Drive. Mr. Hughes observed that the subject property exhibits a variety of environmental features. The site is characterized by steep slopes which are located primarily on the west half of the property. The property grades from an elevation of approximately 930 at the frontage road to 860 at the west end of the property. The site is wooded with a variety of mature trees. In ad- dition, a small ponding area is located partially on the property. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the proponents will dedicate a 100 foot wide con- servation restriction for pond protection. Staff believes that the proposed use of the property for single family dwellings is appropriate and consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff is very concerned with the grade of the proposed roadway. If this road were shifted to the south, the grade would be decreased substan- tially. Staff believes that the only reason to located the road as planned is to provide a new access to the existing dwelling. Staff believes this reason is without merit. Mr. Hughes concluded that Staff would recommend denial of the subdivision based upon the proposed road grade which could be easily reduced through relocation of 'the road. If the proponents desire to prepare a new subdivision plan,, the following conditions should be expected: Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 7 1. Subdivision Dedication 2. Developer's Agreement 3. A 100 foot wide Conservation Restriction abutting the pond 4. The proponent must secure a sanitary sewer easement to Danens Drive prior to final plat approval. 5. Lot 1 (as well as other lots) must be connected to sanitary sewer. 6. The road right of way must be extended to the north property line. 7. The storm sewer must be extended to the edge of the pond. Mr. Hughes noted that Staff had received a letter from Mr. Ronald Zamansky, 5041 West 66th Street who was unable to attend the meeting, but expressed his disapproval of the proposed plat. Mr. Dick Krier of Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing Halley Land Corporation explained to the Commission that problems with development of the site arise from the slope of the terrain, the freeway with its high noise level, the one way frontage road and the need to redevelop a sanitary sewer system since the original one was taken out when the highway was constructed. Mr. Krier stated that the lot arrangements were contrived with compromises made for the advantage of the homeowner in terms of preserving as much natural vegetation as possible. The size of the subdivision is 6.5 acres and the lots are consistent in size with the homes to the south, larger than the lots on Kenney Place and slightly smaller than the lots to the north. Mr. Krier said that the sanitary sewer would be handled through an ease- ment between Lots 6 and 7 runninq south to Danens Drive in order to prevent the necessity of constructinq a lift station. Any cuts in the easement for the sewer would be jacked under in such a way that the surface vegetation would not be disturbed. In response to an inquiry from the Commission regarding the road grades, Mr. Krier stated that the road grade is 12% with a 2% pad at the top. The reason for the steep grading of the road was to avoid having to have 3 lots with direct access on the frontage road, instead providing internal access to the subdivision. The other primary reason for a 12% rather than 10% grade was to preserve the tree cover in the back yards. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer responded to an inquiry from the Commission by noting that the only other development in the City that would have compar- able grading would be the Folke Victorsen property off of McCauley Trail with 12 to 8% grades. Mr. Michael Halley of Halley Land Corporation stated that he had met with Fran Hoffman several times to discuss the development of the property. He also met with Barry Willmert of 6630 Normandale Drive about the traffic on the frontage road and noticed that the road was heavily traveled by cars going quite fast, (40-45 mph). In attempting to appeal to families with small children, the frontage road would present a definite hazard. Mr. Halley concluded that the advantage of the proposed plan is that all of the driveways would come out on to an interior street. John Palmer moved for denial of the subdivision for the reasons stated by Staff. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 8 Ms. Mary Ann Torgerson, 5153 Danens Drive stated that she was con- cerned about the unnatural run off that would flow from the hill top develop- ment on to the lower elevations surrounding the property. Mr. Barry Willmert, 6630 Normandale Drive stated that his driveway is on an 8% grade and he has never had a problem getting in and out of his drive. With the onset of front -wheel drive cars, he noted that the 12% grade should not be a concern. Mr. Frank Lang, 6616 Kenney Place advised the Commission that he had a number of concerns: 1. The demolition of the trees and ponding area. 2. The lots are exaggerated - 7,8 and 9 are larger and the others are quite small. 3. The grade of the roadway is far too severe; access and egress will be a problem. 4. Will there be any additional assessments to the surrounding properties as a result of this development? 5. The natural run off will be altered causing a possible flooding problem to the homeowners at lower elevations. Mr.` Glenn Knoblauch, 5144 Danens Drive noted surprise at the location of the. proposed sanitary sewer running between Lots 6 and 7 and south to Danens Drive because the land actually slopes uphill, (attested to by the low water that is in the lot owned by Mr. Arnold at 5136 Danens Drive where the sewer would be located). Mr. Scott Arnold, 5136 Danens Drive, (located adjacent to the proposed sanitary sewer) stated that his yard is about 300 feet deep, and during a heavy rain of 1/2" or so, water does accumulate. With additional runn off, real prob lems could exist for property owners further down the line. Chairman Lewis advised the Commission that the motion had been made and seconded to deny the proposed subdivision. Upon asking the question, all voted aye, and the motion carried. LD -81-12 Lot 1, Block 1, Paul Klodt First Addition. Generally located south of 76th Street and east of York Avenue. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property is zoned 0-1 Office District and is developed with a three story office building. This building's primaryaccess is to York Avenue and its secondary access is to West 76th Street. The proponent requests a lot division to create a new parcel which would front on West 76th Street. The new parcel would measure approximately 35,000 square feet in area. The proponent has submitted plans for a 6,800 square foot office building which would be one story in height. Mr. Hughes continued noting that the new parcel represents surplus property which can be generally developed as proposed within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Although the specifics of the proposed building are not an issue at this time, Mr. Hughes pointed out the following problems with the preliminary plans: Community Development and Planning Commission July 29, 1981 Page 9 1. A 20 foot building setback is required from the new property. Seven feet is proposed, thus a variance is required. 2. Parking setbacks of 10 feet are required from the new lot line both for existing and proposed parking. A variance is also necessary for the proposed parking setbacks. 3. The new lot appears to run through two proposed parking spaces. A slight realignment of the lot line is advisable. 4. The proposed building creates a dead end drive aisle for the exist- ing parking lot. This should be corrected. 5. Cross easements for access of the existing building to W. 76th Street must be submitted. 6. The existing 50 foot conservation restriction east of the building must be totally sodded and landscaped. 7. The strip of land west of Al Johnson Addition should be sodded. Considering the above comments, Mr. Hughes recommended approval of the lot division. General discussion ensued regarding the 35 foot strip of land west of the Al Johnson Addition. Mr. Paul Klodt explained the history of that small parcel noting that Mr. Al Johnson has not been willing to purchase the 35 foot strip nor to enter into a land trade with them. Gordon Johnson said that the 35 foot strip of property should be a part of the Al Johnson Addition, even if it means Mr. Klodt giving the land to Al Johnson. After a brief discussion, Len Fernelius moved approval of the lot division subject to Staff's recommendations. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Amendment to Penalty Provision of Zoning Ordinance Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the City Attorney, Mr. Erickson, has advised Staff that Zoning Ordinance No. 811 should be amended to include imprisonment as a penalty for the violation thereof and to increase the fine for the violation thereof to $500.00. Helen McClelland moved approval of the Amendment. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 2, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 90-� 0_� 'ij . Joyce G. Repya, Secretary