Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 03-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1983, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, John Palmer, Len Fernelius and John Skagerberg STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Huahes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Linda Elsen, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 9, 1983 David Runyan moved for approval of the minutes and Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: S-83-2 Normandale Bluff. Generally located west of Rolf Avenue and south of West 64th Street. Mr. Gordon Hughes explained that this item had been continued from the February 9, 1983, meeting. He stated that the subject property measures 30,375 square feet in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District with the exception of one of the lots zoned R-2 Multi Residence District. The property is composed of four and one-half 50 foot wide lots which were platted prior to the enactment of present lot and area requirements. A single family dwelling which is located on the central portion of the property, occupies two of the pre-existing lots and encroaches a small distance into the third lot. Mr. Hughes reported that the applicant is requesting approval of a division that would have the effect of combining the four and one-half existing lots into three new lots which are designated as Parcels A, B and C. Parcel B which measures 14,850 square feet in area and 110 feet in width would be retained for the existing dwelling. Parcels A and C would constitute new buildable lots. Parcels A measures 8,000 square feet in area and 60 feet in width and Parcel C 'measures 7,425 square feet in area and 55 feet in width. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet and a minimum of 75 feet. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to permit the creation of these substandard lots. He noted that Parcels A and B are relatively level, whereas, Parcel C falls quite steeply to the southwest. A drop of about 16 feet in elevation from the northeast corner of this lot to the southwest corner is illustrated by the survey. The lot is particularly steep in the approximate area to be occupied by a new dwelling. Most of the area bounded by Warren Avenue, the Crosstown Highway, West 66th Street and Highway 100 was platted into 50 foot wide lots many years ago. However, many of these lots have since been combined to provide larger building sites. The more important lot widths to consider are the Lots adjacent to the subject property. To the north of the property is a 100 foot lot; to the east are three 100 foot lots, to the west are two 75 foot lots and two vacant 50 foot lots which are both owned by the owner of one of the adjacent 75 foot lots, and to the south is Normandale Park. Community Development and Planning Commission March 2, 1983 Page two Mr. Hughes pointed out that while it is true that most of the neighborhooa was originally platted into 50 foot lots, most lots have been combined in whole or in part to meet, exceed or more closely approximate the requirements of our ordinances. Staff believes that the requested lots would not only be uncharacteristic of the entire neighborhood, but would also be particularly imcompatible with surrounding properties. The spirit and intent of our lot width and area require- ments are to preserve the openness and spaciousness of residential neighborhoods and prevent an increase in density. The requested division and variance conflict with this objective. He stated that the subject property has been held in common ownership and used as one dwelling site for many years, since at least 1930. It is apparent that the dwelling was located to take maximum advantage of the entire property and that no consideration was given for the development of the balance of the property for additional homes. This is further evidenced by the fact that the garage until only recently was accessed by a concrete driveway from the north rather than from the east. Staff does not believe that an undue hardship exists to support a variance from our lot width and area requirements. The applicants property complies at the present time with the Ordinance and the dwelling was located so as to maximize the benefits of a large lot. The entire site has been used as one dwelling site and should continue so in order to preserve openness and spaciousness of the neighborhood and to prevent an increased density which would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hughes recommended denial of the subdivision and variance. Mr. Duncan Wallace, the proponent, presented a three-demensional view of the site. He pointed out models of homes that could be located on Parcels A, B and C. Mr. Wallace commented on the map which was mailed to each Commissioner along with a "Position Paper" highlighting the major points of his proposal. The map covered the area of 64th and Rolf. The lot sizes ranged from 50 feet to 225 feet, his being the 225 foot lot. He reviewed the issues stated on the position paper and reported that when purchasing their present house, it was listed as developable. He also contacted the Edina Planning Department and was given the impression that they would have no problem developing their land further upon proof that other lot sizes would be compatible with their proposal. He noted that the smallest proposed lot would be larger than the smallest lot in the neighborhood and the larger lot would be larger than the largest lot in the neighborhood. Mr. Wallace explained that he did consult with his neighbors and found only two supporters. Mr. Wallace then noted that the property could be developed within the bounds of the Ordinance if they altered their present dwelling. This would lead to large expenses and the Wallaces considered this an undue hardship. However, if necessary, they would do this. They feel they are being subjected to unreasonable perimeters which do not apply to others in the neighborhood. He pointed out a home built on a 50 foot lot, 6409 Rolf Avenue, built after the Ordinance was created. Community Development and Planning Commission March 2, 1983 Page three Mr. Wallace quoted the Comprehensive Plan which states that the City should "allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots only if neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved". Although Staff believes it is against the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Wallace believes just the opposite. He notes that the neighborhood consists of modest two and three bedroom homes on modest size lots between 50 to 100 feet. His present home does not conform to that character. His proposal would place it within the character of the other homes. Mr. Wallace addressed the density issue. Although the requirement is 75 foot lots and a variance from this requirement is necessary, the intent is still present which ;is three dwellings on 225 feet. In closing, Mr. Wallace presented photographs which he passed to the Commissioners showing the present dwelling in the neighborhood. Len Fernelius asked the approximate size of the model homes displayed. Mr. Wallace reported 35 by 50 for the southerly lying model and estimated 2,000 square feet for the northerly lying model home. Mr. Fernelius wondered if there were any plans for 65th Street to extend. Mr. Hughes replied no. Mr. Robert Price, 6412 Rolf Avenue South, agreed with Staff's recommen- dation. He also presented photographs displaying the neighborhood dwellings and the present openness. Mr. Price commented on the openness and conservative homes in the neighborhood. He noted that two additional homes would bring more traffic into the neighborhood. Beth Nelson, 6443 Rolf Avenue, commented that the Wallace house gave the neighborhood so much character and this would be ruined by jamming other homes in. Arlene Joern, 6433 Mildred Avenue, bought her home with the understanding that the Wallaces' site would only contain one dwelling. Her view would be destroyed with the addition of two more homes with the loss of trees and openness. However, owning a realty company herself, she could understand how new homes could increase the value of the surrounding property. Marcia Perbix, 6421 Mildred Avenue, felt the additional homes would be inappropriate for the neighborhood. Roger Rostad, 6433 Rolf Avenue South, purchased his home for the park- like atmosphere and felt this would be destroyed with approval of the proposal. John I ken, 6408 Rolf Avenue, believed that the proposed home additions did not fit in with the spaciousness and character of the neighborhood. Jim Curt, 6425 Rolf Avenue, was the father of small children. He was concerned with the increase of traffic. Community Development and Planning Commission March 2, 1983 Page four Len Fernelius questioned if Mr. Wallace would alter his home to conform to the 75 foot lot requirements. Mr. Wallace replied absolutely. He informed everyone that his intention when the property was purchased, was to build a home on the south end that they would move into. He could understand the neighbors' concern regarding their view, however, he did not feel it necessary to accomodate that need. David Runyan commented that the home near the park would not appear to be jammed in because of the park's openness. A person would not be able to tell where the Wallace property ends and the park begins. However, he was interested in some enlargement. Mr. Wallace addressed the Commission. Was there a way to amend the proposal so that it might be approved: Would there be a way to separate the proposal to make each of the two lots buildable? Gordon Johnson explained that the proposal could be held over until the next Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting, at which time he could come back with a new plan or the Commission could accept an amendment to the proposal at this time. Mr. Fernelius suggested that some sort of consensus should be made so that Mr. Wallace would have some sort of direction in which to return with. Mrs. Helen McClelland reported to Mr. Wallace that the financial hardship which he spoke of if it were necessary to alter his present home, was "a self imposed hardship". She also informed him that she could not support the 55 foot lot proposal on the south end. John Palmer and Del Johnson agreed with Mrs. McClelland. Len Fernelius stated that he would support the proposal with a modification of the 55 foot lot. David Runyan and John Skagerberg would agree, also, with the increase of that lot. Duncan Wallace requested a continuance. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the continuance and David Runyan seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. FII. NEW BUSINESS: Z-82-3 Pearson/Elmer Townhouses, R-2 Two Family Dwelling District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District. Lots 1 and 2 Crosstown Hills. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and east of Vernon Court. S-83-4 Preliminary Plan of Pearson/Elmer Addition Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measured about 46,000 square feet in area and is composed of two lots which are presently zoned R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. Approximately one year ago a request to rezone the property to PRD -2 was considered by the Commission and Council. The proposed five -unit townhouse plan received preliminary approval from the City Council, however, the developers did not seek final approval and subsequently dropped their interest in the property. Community Development and Planning Commission March 2, 1983 Page five The owners of the property now desire to resume the rezoning process which was discontinued by the earlier developers, Mr. Hughes explained. Their overall development plans are very similar to the earlier preliminary plans from a site plan and access standpoint. However, two of the units have been relocated northerly on the site in order to accomodate a tennis court. The elevation drawings of the units have been refined from the previous plans and a detailed landscape schedule has been submitted. Our earlier recommendations as to setbacks from Vernon and other property lines have been provided in final drawings. Mr. Hughes recommended approval of final rezoning conditioned upon final platting. Final plat approval is conditioned upon subdivision dedication and a developer's Agreement. Mr. Paul Elmer was present and noted that Frank Cardarelle has no connections with this new development proposal. He commented on the improvement in the plans from the prior proposal. Del Johnson questioned the need for variance and Mr. Hughes reported a side yard variance and small front yard variance which have been granted before on small parcels. Del Johnson moved for approval of the proposal upon Staff's conditions and John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried. S-83-5 Westridge Estates. Generally located north of Crosstown Highway and west of MNS Railway Mr. Hughes stated that the subject property measures two acres in area and is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling District. The Comprehensive Plan and the Western Edina Plan designated the property for low density attached residential uses. Based upon this designation, the proponent requested a rezoning of the property to Planned Residential District - 2 in 1979. At that time, two four -unit buildings were proposed and that rezoning was denied by City Council. The proponent is now requesting a subdivision of the property in order to permit construction of five single family dwellings. The proposed lots range from 12,400 square feet to 16,200 square feet in area. These lots would be served by a short cul de sac from Valley View Road. These lots conform to all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hughes recommended approval subject to a Developer's Agreement and Subdivision Dedication due to the fact that the proposed density has been reduced and a development which is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is proposed. Mr. and Mrs. Berg, the owners, were present to answer questions. Mr. and Mrs. Raymond O'Shaughnessy, 6308 Valley View. Rd, expressed their desire to see one less house on the development. Gordon Johnson commented that the five single family dwellings met the standard lot requirements. David Runyan moved for approval of the proposed plan upon Staff's conditions. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission March 2, 1983 Page six Z-79-10 Plan Amendment to PRD -3, Planned Residential District Overall Development Plan, Braemar Associates/Klodt Development Co. Generally located west of Cahill Road and north of West 78th Street Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the Commission and the Council had granted final rezoning approval to PRD -3 for the subject property approximately two years ago. At that time an eight building condominium project containing 89 units was approved. Construction of the condominium project has never commenced. The property owners have now joined forces with Klodt Construction Company who proposes to develop the east half of the site. Klodt desires to modify the overall development plan to reflect a considerable reduction in the unit sizes as compared to earlier plan. The revised plans illustrate two condominium buildings containing a total of 54 dwelling units. These two buildings will take the place of five condominium buildings (also containing 54 units) which were proposed by the earlier plans. The present site plan illustrates considerably less building coverage than the earlier plan due to the substantial decrease in unit size. Underbuilding and surface parking are proposed in numbers which conform to our ordinance. As with the earlier plan, a 15 foot parking setback from Cahill Road is proposed which is below the required setback from 35 feet. All other setbacks are consistent with our requirements. Mr. Hughes advised that the proponents are not suggesting significant changes to the original plan for the west half of the site. Three condominium buildings containing 36 extrememly large units continue to be shown. (He noted that the approved plans show 35 units in these buildings rather than 36.) The site plan illustrates a slight re -alignment of these buildings to the north and east in order to provide a more generous spacing between the buildings. A revised subdivision has not been submitted for the property. It is our understanding that such a plat would divide the property in half and, therefore, two totally separate condominimum associations would be created. Mr. Hughes noted that Staff was very supportive in the prior proposal for the site and therefore, find it difficult to be enthusiastic about a plan which in essence, separates the site into two distinct projects which are very different in terms of their style and market. He adds aknowledgement that the site is somewhat unique in terms of its surrounding land uses which lead to a more modestly priced unit for the easterly portion of the site and a luxury class unit for the westerly portion. The site has excellent access which does not hinder the establishment of separate projects. Mr. Hughes believes the site plan proposed a desirable placement of the two condominium buildings and their accessory parking. The building coverage of the new proposal is considerably reduced which will contribute to a feeling of openness on the site. Staff requests modification to the site plan, however, in that the parking setback from Cahill should be increased to 20 feet which is more consistent with parking setbacks in other areas. Also Staff would ask that additional work should be undertaken on the elevation plans of the building. He expressed particular concern with the proposed roof line of the building, especially the shed roofs which are shown in various Community Development and Planning Commission March 2, 1983 Page seven locations. He also noted the landscape plans, grading plans, utility plans and other final drawings should be submitted for review prior to approval of the plan amendment by the Council. Mr. Hughes stated that subject to the afore mentioned modifications and comments, Staff recommends approval of the plan amendment conditioned upon the elimination of one dwelling unit from the project in order to make the density consistent with the earlier approval and submission of a revised subdivision for the site. Mr. Gene Nieland, the owner and Mr. Joe Swakman of Klodt Construction were present to answer questions. Mrs. McClelland questioned the elevation of the building. Mr. Swakman replied approximately 40 feet. She also asked how many enclosed parking spots per unit there were and Mr. Swakman answered 1 per unit with the option to purchase a second at 1.4 per unit. Mr. Swakman confirmed Mr. Hughes statement that the two separate condominium developments were proposed to suit two different markets. Mr. Del Johnson asked for a comment on Staff's suggestion to eliminate one dwelling unit from the project. Mr. Swakman noted there would be no problem. Helen McClelland moved for approval subject to Staff's conditions and Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All were in favor the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Runyan moved for adjournment and John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned . Respectfully submitted, Linda Eisen Secretary