Loading...
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