Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 10-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular-,l MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY 'DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gordon Johnson, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, Leonard Ring, David Runyan, John Skagerberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Lewis, John Palmer - STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: John Skagerberg moved approval of the minutes from September 2, 1981 and September 30, 1981. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. 11. OLD BUSINESS: Z-81-8 Darrel A. Farr Development Corp., R-1 Single Family Dwelling S District to 0-1 Office Building District. S-81-13 Lincoln Office Center. Generally located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they had considered this request at the September 30, meeting. At that time, the proponent was requesting subdivision approval in conjunction with rezoning approval. Staff recommended approval of the plat subject to the dedication of a small outlot located north and east of the frontage road through the property. A portion of this outlot abuts Van Valkenburg Park and would provide a desirable access point. The Commission continued the matter until this meeting due to the proponent's unwillingness to dedicate this outlot. Mr. Huqhes explained that since the last meetinq, the proponent (i.e. Mr. Farr) and the property owner (i.e. 'Mr. Lindbery) have reached an agreement whereby the proponent will acquire all of the property including the outlot to the north and east of the frontage road. Previously, the outlot was to be retained by the property owner. Although this would seem to solve the subdivision dedication issue, the property owner will still not con- sent to the dedication of the outlot and thus will prohibit the proponent from dedicating this property. More important to the City, the agreement of the proponent to acquire the entire property obviates the need for a plat in that a division of property is no longer proposed. Thus, the proponents are withdrawinq the proposed plat, and the City will be unable to demand a subdivision dedication. Staffs principal reason for requestinq the dedication of the outlot was for access to Van -Valkenburg Park. I n . order to resolve the issue, the proponent has agreed to dedicate an easement to the City for access purposes across the outlot. Staff believes this easement would represent a good solution to the impasse and would thus recommend rezoning approval conditioned upon receipt of the roadway easement. Community Development and Planning Commission October 28, 1981 Page 2 Mr. Hughes noted that the City would also recommend that a 20 foot wide, easement for a storm sewer outlet to tie into the frontage road be dedicated. Responding to an inquiry from John Skagerberg regarding the maintenance of the outlot from the easement as it narrows to a 3 foot wide strip, Mr. Hughes stated that presumably, Mr. Farr would be responsible for its maintenance. Mr. Hughes suggested that perhaps an overall easement could be arranged which wouldn't impede Mr. Lindbery's access to the north, but could clean up the problem of the longterm maintenance of the strip. Discussion ensued regarding the options open to the Commission. Dick Hassel, representing Mr. Lindbery advised the Commission that in regards to the platting of the property, Mr. Lindbery would not be involved. Mr. Farr would be responsible for any platting, however, there doesn't appear to be a reason for platting the property. Helen McClelland moved approval of the rezoning subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. John Skagerberg added an amendment that Mr. Farr maintain the outlot to the north of the street easement. Len Fernelius seconded the motion and amendment. All voted aye; the motion carried. 5-81-12 Marthe Woods Hill Addition. Generally located north of West 78th Street and west of Marth Road. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent has requested a 1 month continuance. No action was taken. Ill. NEW BUSINESS: Z-81-10 James Halek. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to R-2 8 Two Family Dwelling District. S-81-14 Halek 2nd Addition. Generally located at the northwest corner of Gleason Road and the Crosstown Highway. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, approximately seven acres in area, is bounded by the Crosstown Highway on the south, Gleason Road on the east, and by developed single family lots on the north. The property is extremely long and narrow and has areas of steep topography. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that this site has been the subject of several rezoning requests; the most recentproposals being in 1974 and 1980. The recent proposals for the site have been for 44 and 39 townhouse units. However, an 84 unit apartment building was approved for the site in the early 1970's. The subject request, for R-2 zoning illustrates 15 lots situated north and south of a proposed public street. The new street would intersect Gleason Road 0 Community Development and Planning Commission October 28, 1981 Page 3 at an existing curb cut approximately 300 feet from the Crosstown access road. The proposed lots all conform to the Zoning Ordinance minimum of 15,000 square feet for doubles. Mr. Hughes stated that Edina's Comprehensive Plan illustrates the subject site as suitable for the development of medium denisty multi- family housing of 6 to 12 units per acre. The proposal for a total of 30 units is significantly less than the Comprehensive Plan would allow. Staff believes the proposed rezoning and subdivision is compatible with surrounding uses, and is a logical use of the property. However, ` Staff would suggest some modifications to the proposed plat to insure adequate lot dimensions and to improve the alignment of the new street. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff believes that the intersection of the new street with Gleason Road must remain as shown on the proposed plat. Moving the curb cut to the south would create conflicts with the Crosstown access road. However, this alignment creates an awkward curve as the new street curves west into the property. Staff suggests that the radius of this curve be increased to lessen its severity. Three of the proposed lots (4, 5 and 15) lack sufficient depth to accomodate the typical double bungalow built in Edina. Staff believes that if Lot 15 were eliminated and the roadway re -aligned, there would be a gain in lot depth for the northerly lots sufficient to provide acceptable two family lots. Staff feels that the fourteen lots that would result would meet all ordinance minimums and provide lots not likely to need variances. Mr. Hughes stated that landscaping both as a buffer for the single family homes to the north and for noise attenuation to the south, has been a concern of the Commission in its review of other proposals for this property. However, the present request for a rezoning. to R-2 does not require a land- scaping plan as would a request to rezone to Planned Residential District. Although the City does not have control over the ultimate landscaping, the proponent should be aware of the need for effective screening for the develop- ment. It should further be noted that Hennepin County does not allow land- scaping on its right of way. Subject to the concerns he pointed out, Mr. Hughes recommended approval of the requested rezoning and subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Final rezoning is conditioned upon final plat approval. 2. Final plat approval is conditioned on an executed Developer's Agreement. 3. Subdivision Dedication. Mr. David Kirscht, representing the proponent explained that there are no problems with complying with Staffs recommendations. The radius on the right of way is 82 or 85 feet, which is quite a generous curve, and adjustments can probably be made. General discussion ensued regarding the realignment of the road and the sizes of Lots 4, 5 and 14 as a result of the realignment. It was decided that Lots -4 and 5 would gain 15 feet, Lot 14 would be deminished from 117 to 110 feet Community Development and Planning Commission October 28, 1981 Page 4 in depth and Lot 15 would be eliminated. Helen McClelland stated that she did not like to approve lots that were less than 120 feet deep. Mr. Kirscht advised the Commission that he is willing to do what is necessary for approval of the rezoning and subdivision. However, he noted that he would prefer not to eliminate Lot 15. John Skagerberg expressed concern regarding traffic control at the intersection of the new street and Gleason Road. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that Gleason Road had a relatively serious accident picture in this area. He noted, however, that the curb cut was in the best location from a sight distance standpoint. Mr. Kirscht pointed out that visibility at the intersection is very- good. Responding to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Kirscht explained that the units will not be built for speculation. He added that there is a great deal of interest in the project at the present time. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Staff has not heard from the surrounding neighbors regarding this request. However, upon discussions with several neighbors on previous proposals, Staff understands that the neighbors are satisfied with 1 to 2 story units and are relieved not to have apartments built on the site. Len Fernelius moved approval of the rezoning and subdivision subject to the conditions stated by Staff and the added conditions that Lot 15 be deleted and the roadway be reconfigured. David Runyan seconded the motion. James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Del Johnson, Mary McDonald, Leonard Rinq, David Runyan and John Skagerberg voted aye. Helen McClelland voted nay; the motion carried, 1V. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 2, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, P&JU, A, a,'/ Joyce G. Repya, Secretary r�