Loading...
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