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