HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 09-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson
Helen McClelland, Leonard Ring, James Bentley,
and John Skagerberg
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works/Engineeri
Linda Eisen, Secretary
1. Approval of Minutes: Community Development and Planning Commission minutes
of September 1, 1982.
Helen McClelland moved for approval of the September 1, 1982 minutes and
Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Mr. Gordon Johnson suggested that the order of the agenda be reversed in
order to dispense with the Dewey Hill Third Addition Extension first. He also
suggested that the Plan Amendment should logically be considered before the Evan's
rezoning. All generally agreed.
Ill. New Business:
2. Dewey Hill Third Addition - Extension of PRD -3 Rezoning
Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the City Council had granted
a rezoning to PRD -3 for the subject property in late 1980. The approved plans
proposed the construction of 114 unit condominium project. This project has never
commenced except for certain site work.
In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, the City Council granted
a one year extension of this rezoning in December of last year. The proponent is
now requesting another one year extension of the rezoning.
The Staff recommends approval for the same reasons contained in the
December 2, 1981 Staff Report.
Upon the Commission's inquiry Mr. Dave Sommers of Laukka and Assoc.
expressed that there was a possibility of a new building concept, but it was at
such an early stage that they had nothing to present at this time.
Del Johnson moved for approval of the extension and James Bentley seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
1. Amendment of Comprehensive Plan - Evans' Property
Mrs. Ron Gamer of 5816 Merold Drive submitted a petition from the neighbors
in the vicinity of the Evans' property in favor of amending the Plan from Low Density
Attached Residential to Single Family Residential She reviewed the four reasons
for supporting this change which were expressed in a memo sent to each commissioner.
1. The property is not large enough for PRD development.
2. The land is not being conventionally platted.
Community Development and Planning Commission
September 29, 1982 Meeting
Page two
3. All the surrounding lots are single family.
4. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan's Land Use Element contains an 10
objective the states "Maintain and protect single family detached
dwelling neighborhoods as the dominant land use in Edina."
She stated that a PRD -2 Zoning was a medium density use and this area
was planned for low density. Mr. Hughes explained that PRD -2 zoning would
allow 0-6 units per acre which is consistent with the Plan's designation.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the existing designation of
Low Density Attached Residential reflected proper use of this parcel. He noted
-the proposed rezoning of this property conformed to the Plan.
Roger Clemence, 1904 Girard Avenue stated that he felt the existing low
density attached designation was appropriate.
Helen McClelland reminded the neighbors that the designation for this
p property was agreed to many -years before. She recommended to stay with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hughes explained to James Bentley that there were_ single family
dwellings to the north of the parcel and apartments to the west. He pointed
out again that a PRD -2 zoning conformed to the Comprehensive Plan.
Del Johnson moved for rejection of the proposal to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and Helen McClelland seconded the motion.
Mrs. Gamer indicated that the general concern that the proposed building
plans of Mr. Evan's may never happen, therefore, leaving the option open for other
builders to put doubles in any location on the parcel. It was clarified that it
had to be built . according to the plans. Mrs. McClelland reassured them that
the Commission was there fore their protection, although Mrs. Gamer expressed
the many hours it took for her to present the neighbors objections. She was
not convinced that her hard work would have to be repeated again with another
builder.
Mr. Alan Sweet, 5904 Merold Drive, questioned how the doubles further down
Vernon were built when it was zoned Single Family Residential. Once it was informed
that those people too had to receive approval from the Planning Commission, he
suggested that this be the same situation. Zone it all Single Family Residential and
let the builder request a change. John Skagerberg commented he felt the Compre-
hensive Plan was a good plan for the future.
Gordon Johnson asked for those in favor of Del Johnson's motion. All were
in favor; the motion carried.
11. Old Business
Z-81-3 Leo M. Evans, R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-2 Two
Family Residence District
S-82-3 Evans Subdivision, Generally located south of Vernon Avenue
east of Olinger Road and north of Merold Drive.
Community Development and Planning Commission
September 29, 1982 Meeting
Page three
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that upon the continuance of this
request the proponent had" returned with revised plans placing seven R-2 lots
(all abuting Vernon) and fourteen single family lots as suggested at the September 1
meeting. According to the proponent's figures, the R-2 lots average about 16, 600
square feet and the single family lots average about 11,800.
The revised plan, he explained, includes a northerly extension of Wycliffe
Road to Vernon Avenue as shown on the prior submittal. Wycliffe Court now
terminated in a cul de sac rather than intersecting with Vernon.
Mr. Hughes stated that City Staff and County Staff reviewed the sight
distance concerns at the intersection of Wycliffe Road and Vernon and determined
that the proposed intersection meets the minimum sight distance standards for
both east and west bound Vernon Avenue traffic.
Staff recommended that the proposed subdivision and rezoning be accepted
with the following exceptions of lots 3, 4 and 8, Block 2. Mr. Hughes explained
that lot 8 failed to meet the minimum lot depth requirements of 120 feet. Due to
the shape of lot 4 and the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it
appeared that it would be impossible to construct a double bungalow on this
T lot. According to the Staff's measurements, lot 3 did not meet the minimum lot
area requirment of 15, 000 square feet. He noted that several of the dimensions
shown on the plan did not appear to scale accurately. In most cases it was found
that the new dimensions are somewhat greater than the old and thus the lot sizes
are actually somewhat larger than noted.
Mr. Hughes noted that this problem had been brought to the proponent's
attention and he had proposed to relocate the most westerly cul de sac approximately
75 feet easterly. Although such a modification appears to solve the lot area, depth
and setback problems it causes the creation of two neck lots. Therefore, Staff
suggested the elimination of one of the westerly cul de sac lots and with such a
modification would recommend rezoning and plat approval conditioned upon
1. Subdivision Dedication; and 2. Developer's Agreement.
Mr. Roger Clemence noted that the proposed lots were above Ordinance minimum.
He pointed out that it was difficult to determine just what officially labeled a lot
a "neck" lot.
Discussion ensued regarding the neck lots. It was brought out that a portion
of Mr. Dennis Wegner's land was included in the proposed plans. Land swaping was
mentioned along with lot line adjustments. The question of the legality of neck
lots was also discussed.
Mr. Hughes noted that at present the City was involved in a law suit
regarding neck lots. The problem that the City has with neck lots, is that it
becomes a very easy way to subdivide a single family lot. This creates a nieghbor-
hood that looks like it is sprouting houses in the back yards and may also
cause public safety concerns.
Mr. Hughes went on to say that they have allowed some neck lots in the
past but have learned from these of the problems they present and therefore,
now discourage them.
Community Development and Planning Commission
September 29, 1932 Meeting
Page four
The question was brought forth that if the land had not been surveyed,
how do we know the proposed measurements and plan are acceptable. Upon
discussion Mr. Hughes informed that the platting of land is a two step process.
There is a preliminary plat first that goes before the Planning Commission and
Council, if that is approved then a surveyor is employed and submits his findings
and measurements to the surveyors' office at Hennepin C -aunty and there it is
check for accuracy. Then it comes back again to City Council for final approval.
John Winston, 5709 Hawkes Drive, proposed a new concept of closing off
Wycliffe Road and cul de sac or looping it and making some changes of doubles
to singles. He felt this would solve many of the problems mentioned that evening.
Mr. Larry Fischer of 5705 Wycliffe Road, presented a signed petition to each
Commission member showing the neighbors' oppositions to the extension of
Wycliffe Road to Vernon Avenue. He eleborated with the following comments:
* It would open a secluded neighborhood to the rest of the world.
* It would develop into a short cut to the Good Samaritan Church which
is constantly busy.
* It would lessen property values.
* There is no snow removal on that street and this would present
dangerous driving situations.
Mr. Fischer reminded the Commission of their unanimous vote in a prior
meeting to loop Wycliffe Road instead of extending it through to Vernon.
Del Johnson suggested that perhaps this was a self-serving request in the
respect that by extending Wycliffe Road, this would relieve some of the traffic
from other roads. Mr. Fischer argued that Tracy was better built for handling
such traffic.
Another neighbor stated that when they selected their neighborhood to
live in, one of it's selling points was the secluded area and therefore, they paid
a substaintial amount for that seclusion.
Mr. Fischer reminded the Commission that this road would be sharply
curved and not conducive to heavy traffic.
Mr. Clemence pointed out that the Commission had voted unanimously
on Wycliffe Road looping when it was considered in the Townhouse plans. He
explained that situation was for a different use. He also felt that a great part
of the traffic would stay on Tracy Avenue because he agreed that Tracy would
handle the traffic better.
Dennis Wegner , 5705 Olinger Road, spoke regarding the "bottle neck" lots.
His understanding of the 120 foot lot depth minimum was required to avoid houses
being too close together. He observed that by having a longer driveway the
homes would be built further back on the lot close to his lot line. Mr. Clemence's
statement that this would be a secluded lot was inaccurate.
Community Dvelopment and Planning Commission
September 29, 1982 Meeting
Page five
He went on to say he saw no justification for double bunglows. This would
only guarantee blight. He argued that homes built along Vernon would most likely
develop into rentals. He also stated that the lot adjacent to his lot was slated as
a double lot but was 16,200 square feet and was actually too small according to the
average double lot size.. Itshould really be a single family lot.
Del Johnson questioned the reasoning of "blight" considering there were
so many beautiful homes along Vernon, both singles and doubles. Mr. Wegner
commented that there were too- many doubles in a row and that we had to look at
the side of them.
Mr. Clemence suggested that perhaps doubles were not so terrible. They
would provide a good buffer and they were surrounded by vegetation. A
compromise was already made and Mr. Clemence encouraged a decision.
Helen McClelland agreed that a compromise had been offered and the
neighbors were still not satisfied. She moved to accept the proposal for R-2
based upon the amended plans and the preliminary plat conditions on a subdivision
dedication and a developer's agreement. Del Johnson seconded the motion. James
Bentley stated he would agree with the motion on the condition that one lot was
eliminated.
Mrs. McClelland explained that the corrections suggested by Staff were
already made. Del Johnson questioned the amount of avariances that would be
needed the way the lots were arranged. Gordon Hughes anticipated two of the
lots would need variances.
Sue Rasschaert, 5629 Wycliffe Road, recommended that Wycliffe Road enter on
to Vernon at Heather Lane. Roger Clemence pointed out that the City suggested
the extension of Wycliffe Road cc shown on his plans. He felt it was the
City's intention to extend it out onto Vernon without it curving, all over-.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Gene Rasschaert, 5629 Wycliffe Road, argued that Mr. Evans
did not want the property value for his homes to go down but would allow the homes
on Wycliffe to suffer due to the road extension.
Mrs. Gamer answered 'Helen McClellend's comments by stating that to compromise
means two parties must start out with reasonable requests and then both compromise.
She felt that the Council had made recommendations that were not at all met and
wished that it be noted.
Roll call was taken for approval of Helen McClelland's motion. All voted
aye with the exception of Leonard Ring and James Bentley. The motion carried.
This will be considered before City Council on October 18, 1982.
IV. Adjournment
Helen McClelland moved for adjournment and James Bentley seconded the motion.
All ayes; the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Elsen, Secretary