HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 12-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularIC
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1982 AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Mary McDonald,
Helen McClelland, Gordon Johnson, Dave Runyan,
John Skagerber•g and Leonard Ring
MEMBERS ABSENT: Del Johnson, Len Fernelius, Jim Bentley,
and John Palmer -
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner -
Linda Eisen, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Gordon Johnson corrected the minutes of the Community Development and
Planning Commission minutes of October- 27th meeting by noting that he abstained
from voting on the matter- of 5-82-4 Mikulay's Addition, Block 1 Replat. The
correction noted, Dave Runyan moved for approval of those minutes, Helen McClelland
seconded the motion. All in favor; the motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-82-5 Johnson Bldg. Co., R-1 Single Family Residence District to
PRD -3 Planned Residence District. 4600 France Avenue,
generally located west of France Avenue and south of 46th
Street extended.
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that on September 1 a rezoning
request to PRD -3 for the subject property was heard. The proponent proposed
a 13 unit townhouse development at that time and the Commission denied the
proposal, based on its density of 11.5 per acre and recommended accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan of 6 units per acre.
The City Council also considered the prior- proposal at its October 4, 1982,
meeting and agreed with the Planning Commission. They recommended that the
proponent could revise the plan to conform with the Comprehensive Plan and
continued the request indefinitely.
Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent has returned with a plan illustrating
a 10 unit townhouse plan for the site. This plan is very similar to the prior- submittal
in terms of the style of development, access and parking. The proposed density
equates to about 9 units per acre.
On behalf of Staff, Mr. Hughes reommended denial of the request based
upon non-conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Robert Johnson, Johnson Building Company, reported that the wall and
vegetation would still be maintained as in the prior- plan. He concluded that
the main concern was density. He presented an illustration of the 46th and France
block. He pointed out the large number- of double bungalows on the block and
explained that his density was comparable with the rest. They were all about 5, 000
square feet per unit.
CO,%1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING
PAGE TWO
John Skagerberg questioned when the neighboring doubles were platted
or approved and Bill Lewis pointed out that thosebuildinc+s would not be able
to receive a building permit now due to the non -conforming lot size.
Mike Klein, Johnson Building Company, noted that their- plan was equal
to the density on the rest of the block. It was explained that those doubles
had been "grandfathered " in.
Dave Runyan commented that the plan did not look any more dense then
what was there already. He added that the proposed plan was a big improvement
over the previous plan.
Mike Klein's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan text was that they
were looking for obsolete commcercial property along France Avenue to be multi -
residence. He believed that his medium density plan was appropriate for that
lot.
Rollie Thompson, 4545 Meadow Road spoke representing the neighbors
who petitioned at the September- meeting. The petitioners were still in agreement
that there should only be 6 or 7 units for the correct density on that lot. They
felt that R-2 or PRD -2 was the proper- zoning -- not R-3.
Mr. Thompson commented that a "For- Sale" sign was on the lot up until
the previous Saturday and therefore, many of the neighbors thought it unnecessary
to attend the meeting.
Mike Klein asked the petitioning neighbors what their- ob;ection was to a 10
unit plan as opposed to 7 units. Mr. Thompson pointed out that there would be a
minimum of 6 to 12 more people on the property and that the vegetation would be
cut down considerably as opposed to having only 7 units. Mr. Klein argued that
per unit there would most likely only be 1, or maybe 2, additional people. This
was more of a market for professional or single people. Also the type of units
proposed is two story units with tuck under- garages which cover• less territory
than a single family dwelling might cover.
Mary Jo Aiken, 4548 France Avenue, objected to the traffic and noise
created by three additional units. She felt that on a fairness standpoint, they
pay the same taxes as everyone else and therefore, would like the same zoning as
everyone else.
Mike Doyle, 4634 France Avenue, explained that he was trying to raise a
young family. He would like to see traffic kept to a minimum and he felt the
zoning should be consistent with the zoning of other properties.
Mr. Klein stated that France Avenue already had heavy traffic and this
proposal would not make any noticable traffic increase. He felt that this was not
a good single family neighborhood, but designed for a multi -family living.
Dave Runyan felt the proposed plan was not any more dense than what
is presently there. He objected to the plan, however, because of its location.
•
i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING
PAGE THREE
Helen f0cClelland motioned to stay with Staff's interpretation of the
Comprehensive Plan and moved for denial of the proposed plan for 10 units.
She felt a maximum of 7 units could only be acceptable. John Skagerberg
seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
Mr. Hughes reported that this would be heard at the December- 20th meeting
of the City Council.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
LD -82-10 Lot 1, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition
Generally located north of Tanglewood Court and west
of Gleason Road.
Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting a party wall division
of an existing two family dwelling. Individual utility connections are in place.
Staff recommended approval.
Helen McClelland moved for approval and Leonard Ring seconded the motion.
All in favor; the motion carried.
LD782-11 Lot 4, Block 6, Braemar- Hills 9th Addition.
Generally located north of Tanglewood Court and west of
Gleason Road.
Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent is requesting a party wall
division of an existing two family dwelling. Individual utility connections are
in place.
Due to the orientation of the building, the unit on Parcel A will not own
any rear- yard area. The proponent states that cross easements will be provided
to allow use of the rear- yard on Parcel B by the owners of Parcel A.
Mr. Hughes recommended approval conditioned upon Staff's review of the
cross easement agreement and the City's right to notice of the agreement is
amended in the future. Mr- Hughes noted that we have imposed this condition
on other- similar- double bungalow lot divisions.
John Skagerberg moved for approval of the proposed plan and David Runyan
seconded the motion. All in favor. The motion carried.
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE:
V. ADJOURNMENT:
December- 29, 1982
Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment of the meeting and Helen McClelland
seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Elsen, Secretary