Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 04-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMIN'jTES O;' TliE RrE('tjLAR Ail. r: "Ti'iC O'1` T -IE OMMUI ITY DEVELOPtOENNT AND PL.ANWNG COMMiSSION Ii -LD ON INEDN SDAY, A'sIL 28, 1;;82, AT 7.:0 n.M EDINA CITY HALL C.")U'JCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT.: Chairman Bill Lewis, .la.i-ies Bentley, Leonard Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, John Palmer, Leonard Ring and David Runyan MEMBERS ABSENT: John Skagerberg STAFF PRESENT: Cordon Hughes, City Planner Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: John Palmer moved for approval of the r;iinutes from the March 31, 1982 meeting. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-82-2 M.H. Haymaker. R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -3 Planned Residence District. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of Summit Avenue and Inter— iachen Boulevard. Mr. Hughes reminded they Commissicn tf^at this item, was heard at the las- ifieeting, however since the proponent was not %resent at that meelil4g, it vias held over until tonight. He added that the proponent is requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 to facilitate the construction of a 5 unit townhouse project. Since Mr. Hughes presented Staff's report on the rezoning at the ,":larch 31 meeting, r,e noted that he wculd not To into detail, but rid add thae :staff would recommend approval of the rezoning. Mir. Hughes pointed our: that the comments regarding the plans at the last meeting centered around the height of the buildings, elevation of the site, and the grading of the site. He further stated that Mr. Haymaker, the proponent was present and would ire glad to answer any questions. Mr. Fred Bentz, architect for the proponent explained to the Com- a, Ission that the project will consist of five, two bedroom units consisting. of 1,200 to 1,400 square feet of living area. The lower level wiii consist of the garage and utility room. The first floor rill consist of a living room, dining room, kitchen and ? bath, and the second Boor will include 2 bedrooms, a full bath and a large closet. They would be wood framed; either painted or stained with wood windows, and asphalt shingled roofs. Regarding the siting of the buildings, %1r. Beritz stated that they have attempted to meet the City requirements. With respect to the concerns of grading, they have not pin -pointe:] th,: exact -loo r elevations, but could reduce the apparefit height from the street b, cuLtir!g the hill down some, by dropping the parking area, or by a combiriaiio-n of dropping the parking lot with some berming along the two side properties and against the building. This would reduce the street side of the project to an approximate 2 story plus building, while the court side would still be a three story building because the garages are tucked under the living area, allowing for a more efficient and compact pian. Community Development and Planning Commission April 28, 1982 Page 2 Responding to a question about the comparative height of the buildings, Mr. Bentz explained that the current building on the site is approximately 30 feet high to the roof peak. The proposed buildings will be about 35 feet from the garage entry level. From the street side, the elevation could be reduced about 8 feet, which would make it no higher than the present struc- ture. Mr. Bentz added that if the site were to be graded down, the elevation could be reduced even more. With regard to the grading on the site, Mr. Bentz explained that the grade level of the driveway is originally proposed to be level with Summit Avenue. However, if the grading on the site is altered to address the con- cerns of the apparent height of the buildings, then the driveway would be lowered by several feet. Concerning the affects of the grading on the west property line, Mr. Bentz explained that with the original plans, no retaining walls would be required. If the site is regraded, the plans will need to be revised allowing for some type of retaining wall or berming. Mr. Haymaker added that presently, there is quite a bit of heavy vegetative screening along the west property line. Mr. Lester Buss, 5013 Hankerson, the westerly adjacent neighbor asked what the proposed setbacks on the west side of the site would be. Mr. Hughes explained that a 35 foot setback is required, the proponent is proposing a 15 foot setback and a 20 foot setback variance would be required. Mr. Haymaker and Mr. Bentz then reviewed the plans with the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Janet Erickson, 5008 Summit Avenue voiced her concerns regarding assessments for future sanitary sewer and water connections on Summit Avenue, and asked whether the proponent would share in tate costs. Mr. Hughes explained that the subject site will connect to sewer from Interlachen Boulevard, not Summit ,Avenue and consequently, may not share in the assessment for the connections to Summit. Ms. Erickson then stated that she felt it was unfair for the three home- owners on Summit Avenue to bear the total cost of the assessments. Len Fernelius observed that the effect to Ms. Erickson would be the same regardless of what was done with this property. He added that the issue of assessments for sewer and water is not a planning matter and should not have a bearing on this rezoning request. Del Johnson asked Mr. Haymaker whether he was in concurrance with Staffs recommendations. Mr. Haymaker stated that he was. Del Johnson then moved approval for the reasons stated by Staff and subject to Staff's conditions. Upon voting, James Bentley, Leonard Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, John Pakiier, Leonard Ring and David Runyan voted aye. Helen McClelland and Mary McDonald voted nay; the motion carried. Ms. McClelland explained that she objected because she doesn't want to force the whole block to be rezoned to PRD --3. Community Development and Planning Commission April 28, 1982 Page 3 Ill. NEW BUSINESS: Z-82-3 Jack Helms, R-2 Two Family Residence District to PRD -2 Planned Residence District. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and east of Vernon Court.. John Palmer announced that he would abstain from participating in this item because Mr. Helms is a good friend and a colleague in his law practice. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 46,000 square feet in area and is zoned R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. The property is requesting a rezoning to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. The property is composed of two lots that were platted and zoned R-2 in 1979. This plat, which was called Crosstown Hills, included three R-2 lots. An existing building is located immediately southwesterly of the subject property. Across Vernon Avenue to the north are the Hansen/Martinson townhouses, Fountainwoods Apartments and the Habitat. The proponent is requesting a rezoning to .PRD -2 Planned Residence District. A preliminary site plan has been submitted which illustrates a five unit townhouse development of the property. These units would be served by a common drive from Vernon Avenue. The units would back into the hillside which slopes from east to west across the site. Two enclosed garage stalls per unit and surface parking in the driveway areas are proposed. In addition to the site plan, the proponent has submitted conceptual elevation drawings. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the proposal would require setback variances. Thirty-five foot building setbacks are required from all property lines. A 20 foot setback from Vernon Avenue and 10 foot setbacks from the east and southwest property lines are requested. Although a preliminary plat has not been submitted, the proponent states an intent to propose a townhouse style plat. This plat will be sub- mitted in conjunction with final rezoning approval. Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property is designated for low density attached residential by the Comprehensive Plan. The type and density of the use (i.e. 5 units per acre) conform to the Plan. In Staffs view, the proposed project represents an excellent use for this parcel and should complement the townhouse and apartment develop- ments to the north. Staff's only reservation regarding this project has been it's relationship to the remodeled dwelling which is located on the abutting lot. Staff believes the proposed plan should not adversely impact this dwelling. The proponent reports that the owner of this dwelling has approved the proposed plans. Community Development April 28, 1982 Page 4 and Planning Commission Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that although several setback variances will be required, Staff believes that the side yard variances are appropriate in that they approximate required setbacks for double bungalows. Staff does request, however, that the Vernon Avenue setback should be increased to a uniform setback of at least 30 feet. Likewise, Staff requests that the drive aisle setback on the west side should be increased to 10 feet. With the aforementioned modifications, Staff recommended preliminary rezoning approval with the following conditions: 1. Final rezoning is contingent on an acceptable overall development plan. 2. Final platting. 3. Subdivision dedication based on one new dwelling unit. Len Fernelius asked the proponent if they would have any trouble increasing the, drive aisle setback. Mr. Jack Smuckler, architect for the proponent explained that they would be willing to modify the plans to meet the Staffs recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding the setbacks for the site with relation to the setbacks of the surrounding properties. Len Fernelius then moved approval of the preliminary rezoning request. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye, ;with the exception of John Palmer who abstained; the motion carried. S-82-1 Corkins Addition. Generally :ocated in the southwest quadrant of Schaefer Road and Interlachen Boulevard and generally described as part of Lot 27, Auditor's Subdivision No. 325. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the subject property measures approximately 130,000 square feet and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property is improved with one single family dwelling which fronts on Interlachen Boulevard, but gains its access from Schaefer Road. The property is characterized by level topography and is heavily wooded. The proponent is requesting a three lot subdivision of the subject property. Lot 1 would measure 82,290 square feet and would be retained for the existing dwelling. Lots 2 and 3 would be new buildable lots and would measure 21,641 square feet and 26,065 square feet respectively. Both lots would front on Schaefer Road. The unusual configuration of Lot 2 is caused by an existing swimming pool on Lot 1. Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property would have been affected by the Blake -Schaefer roadway plans prepared several years ago. According to these plans, a roadway would have been constructed through this property to Schaefer Road. This roadway plan was reviewed last year in connection - with the Oak Ponds subdivision. At that time, it was agreed that a roadway to Schaefer was not needed. Community Development and Planning Commission April 28, 1982 Page 5 Staff believes the proposal represents a logical and expected division of the subject property. The proposed lot sizes certainly exceed ordinance requirements and are consistent with the lot to the south and the lots approved for the Oak Pond subdivision to the southeast. The issue of a right of way to Schaefer was resolved last year, and staff believes no longer affects this property. Staff is somewhat concerned with the shape of Lot 2. The dwelling to the south of the subject property maintains an 80 foot setback from Schaefer Road. Therefore, the dwelling on the new lots must maintain 80 foot setbacks. This requirement, coupled with the 25 foot rear yard requirement, results in a smaller building site for Lot 2 than may be realized. However, about 60 feet of "buildable depth" would remain on Lot 2 which certainly should be adequate for even a very large dwelling. Nevertheless, Staff wishes to stress that they would not recommend approval of a variance from the front yard requirement for Lot 2. Therefore, the developer must realize that this dwel- ling may be located closer to the swimming pool on Lot 1 than may be desired. If this is a concern, the Commission may wish to consider only a two lot sub- division. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision subject to his previously mentioned comments and to subdivision dedication. The Commission raised question about the location of the swimming pool on Lot 1. Mr. Hughes explained that it is in the southeast corner of the lot and will be able to rnaintain generous setbacks of about 25 feat from all property lines. Following a brief discussion, John Palmer moved approval of the prelim- inary subdivision. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 2, 1982 V. ADJOURNMENT: 8: 15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, J Joyce G. Repya, Planning Secretary