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�