HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 03-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1983
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson,Del Johnson
Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, John Palmer, Leonard
Ring and Phil Sked
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner
Harold Sand, Assistant Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Linda Eisen, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes: March 2, 1983
John Palmer moved for approval of the March 2, 1983, minutes. Leonard
Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried.
I1. Old Business:
Z-83-1 Gittleman Corporation R-1 Single Family Residence to PRD -3
Planned Residential District.
Mr. Craig Larsen noted that the Commission has given preliminary approval
of the rezoning of the subject property on February 9, 1983, to allow for the
construction of 108 condominium units on the 11.65 acre site. On February 28, 1983,
the City Council granted the project preliminary approval.
The proponent has returned with final development plans and is requesting
final zoning approval for the project. The plans presented are the site plan,
grading plan, parking level plan, main floor plan, unit plans, entertainment center
plan, main floor plan, elevations, building section, site profile, landscape plan survey,
and utility plan which all meet ordinance requirements for completeness.
Mr. Larsen believed that the landscaping should be increased around the
tennis court in the southeasterly corner of the site and explained that the Gittleman
Corporation agreed to comply with the request. He explained that the minor problems
Staff was concerned with in connection with the utility plans presented, had been
corrected also. He recommended final rezoning approval conditioned upon:
1. final platting;
2. an acceptable landscape plan and schedule;
3. staff approved utility plans.
Fran Hoffman stated that there were no problems with drainage and
agreed with the approval of the utility plans.
Gordon Johnson moved for final rezoning approval subject to Staff's conditions
and John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983
Page two
S-83-2 Normandale Bluff
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission that the subject request was heard
by the Commission at its March 2, 1983, meeting and was continued at the request
of the proponent. A three lot subdivision creating two new buildable lots
of 8,100 square feet and 7,425 square feet respectively was requested.
He explained that the proponent, Duncan Wallace has now returned with
an amended proposal. He has increased the size of Parcel C (the south lot) from
55 feet to 62 feet. This results in a new lot area of 8,370 square feet. In order to
meet the zoninq ordinance setback requirement of 10 feet for the existing house
on Parcel B, the existing deck would have to be removed which Mr. Wallace has
indicated that he would do.
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission that they had indicated at the March 2, 1983
meeting that they may be amenable to a compromise two -lot plat if the size of the
south parcel (Parcel C) were increased. The proponent has responded by increasing
the size as much as possible while still retaining the required setback for the existing
structure without structural modification, except for removal of the deck. Staff
agrees that this may bean acceptable compromise, but only if the north parcel (Parcel
A) is combined into one lot with the existing house on Parcel B.
Mr. Duncan Wallace noted that he was most interested in building on the south
lot. He pointed out that the openness and uniqueness would be preserved, because
the lot was located next to a park. They were interested in building a home
on this lot that would be in keeping with the. character of the neighborhood
since they, intended to build for themselves.
Mr. Del Johnson questioned whether or not the new lot would need any variances
when building. Mr. Wallace replied that he would live within the bounds and would not
request a variance.
Gordon Johnson asked if Mr. Wallace would agree to eliminate the north lot,
Parcel A. Mr. Wallace agreed that he would only build on the south lot, Parcel C.
Helen McClelland asked what would need to be removed from the present house.
to increase the size to 62 feet and mantain a 10 foot setback for Parcel C. Duncan
Wallace replied that the deck would have to be removed. Mrs. McClelland expressed
her concerns that the homes would be too close together. Mr. Wallace stated that it
was mostly roof that would be seen from his present house and that it was an
architectural problem and would be dealth with. His concern was to be able to sell
his present home and would try to make the view as appealing as possible.
Mrs. McClelland noted that she was concerned with the surrounding neighbar§i.
Arlene Joern, 6433 :klilared Avenue, .stated that she contested the proposed
subdivision and variances for two reasons:
1. She believed that it would diminish the value and esthetics of her land.
It was her understanding when purchasing her home that the southerly lot did not
meet the City's Zoning Ordinances and, therefore, was an unbuildable lot. She
purchased her property because of the character, privacy and surrounding environrr-nt.
This would diminish the value of her property.
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983, Meeting
Page three
2. She was concerned with theseveredrop in the contour of the subject
property. This would present drainage problems once the hard surfaced house
replaced trees and undergrowth. She would be affected by water run-off and soil
erosion.
Ms. Joern presented a copy of market statistics, along with copies of her
statement for the Commissioners. The market statistics showed Edina as being
the most costly location in the Metropolitan area to live in. She is certain the property
values would be endangered.
Mr. John Eickman, 6408 Rolf Avenue, argued against Mr. Wallace's petition
discussed in the previous meeting. He felt there was no undue hardship, that it
was all self imposed. As for Mr. Wallace's understanding when purchasing the house,
nothing can be confirmed. However, a substantial period of time has past since then.
He believed that replatting was not only unnecessary, but impractical and should not
be allowed.
Mr. Eickman stated that this would set improper presidence for other property
in the neighborhood. He noted that the property Mr. Wallace had pointed out at
6409 Rolf Avenue had not received a variance or requested one according to
the City's records. Mr. Eickman argued that this was some 30 odd years ago.
This could not be considered a "property right" but detrimental to that property.
If damaged by fire or windstorm, it is possible that the building could not be
reconstructed with the same variance.
Mr. Eickman concluded that no circumstances for granting this subdivision
were present and should be denied.
Marcia Perbix, 6421 Mildred Avenue noted her 175 foot lot abuts Mr. Wallace's
on the west. She explained that she had considered building on the south most 50 feet
of her property, but decided that she would not apply for the variance. However,
if Mr. Wallace's request was approved, she would expect the same consideration
upon application.
Beth Nelson, 6443 Rolf Avenue South, expressed her beliefs that no hardship
exists and therefore, no variance should be granted.
Jim Kurtt, 6425 Rolf, pointed out that at the present time only Parcel C would
be built upon. However, perhaps two years down the line Parcel A will request the
same variance due to the precedence set should Parcel C be allowed to be built upon.
Robert Price, 6412 Rolf Avenue, presented an area map for the Commissioner's
consideration. He commented on Mr. Wallace's position paper presented at the last
meeting. The intent to preserve the spaciousness and openness regarding density
was incorrectly described by Mr. Wallace, he argued. Three homes on 225 feet
of land should not be allowed. The homes in the neighborood as is, although they are a
mixed group of sizes and lots, are well balanced. Mr. Price questioned the degree
of improvements the Wallace's have made on their present home. He suggested that
there is no guarantee that the Wallace's will live in the new home if built, or sell it.
Mr. Price questioned the reason as to why the Wallace's waited two years before proposinc
to build on the south lot, if that were truely their intention when purchasing the
property.
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983, Meeting
Page four
Mr. Price concluded that the grove of trees, south of the property
which would be removed in order to build the home, are a resting place for the
Monarch butterfly migration.
Mary McDonald requested Fran Hoffman to comment regarding the
erosion possibility. Mr. Hoffman stated that the building plans must be approved
by the City and drainage would be addressed at that point.
Mr. Duncan Wallace responded to the neighbors' comments. He attempted
to clarify the density issue. The City intended one house every 75 feet, and although
he was proposing something different, he felt it was equivalent.
Mr. Wallace explained that they have been in the process of making their
present home saleable and that was the purpose of the two year wait.
Del Johnson moved for denial of the request and Helen McClelland seconded
the motion. All were in favor except Mary McDonald. The motion carried.
ill. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-83-3 Kenneth "Chip" Glaser. PID, Planned Industrial District to
C-1, Commerical District.
Mr. Larsen reported that the subject site measures approximately 41,500
square feet and is currently zoned Planned Industrial District (PID) . The site
is vacant and was recently the subject of a right-of-way acquisition of approxi-
mately 2,470 square feet by Hennepin County. This right-of-way reduces the
net site to about 39,000 square feet.
He stated the proponent is requesting a rezoning of the parcel to C-1
Commerical District to allow the construction of a Dairy Queen restaurant. It
is situated in a rather large industrial park that is located in both Edina and
Eden Priairie. The area contains no free standing commercial use in either Edina
or Eden Prairie.
Mr. Larsen explained the site is a non -conforming PID site because it is
smaller than the two acre minimum required for development. Development of the
site for a use allowed in the PID zone would require a variance from the minimum
parcel size requirement and, more than likely, several setback variances.
The proposed rezoning to C-1 District would impose less restrictive requirements
on the development of the site, and presumably, fewer variances would be necessary.
The seven parking spaces on the northly portion of the site are within the required 20
foot setback required for parking areas. The drive aisle circling the building
encroaches in the 5 foot setback required for drive aisles. The plan appears to
meet all other parking and setback requirements for the C-1 District.
Mr. Larsen noted that the plan illustrates a drive-through carry -out facility.
Drive-in facilities are only allowed in the C-4 Commerical District zone.
Craig Larsen expressed Staff's concern because of its potential impact on
neighboring developed sites. A commerical use foothold in the area would
undoubtably increase pressure to establish other commerical uses which would
present serious zoning compliance problems.
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983, Meeting
Page five
The Eden Prairie Planning Staff has expressed its concern to Staff
regarding the request. They feel that the proposed use would have a negative
impact on traffic conditions and would create pressure for more commerical uses
in an area planned to have no free standing commerical uses.
Mr. Larsen stated that the zoning ordinance establishes certain minimum
standards for the establishment of new commerical areas. New commerical districts
must either be more than two acres in size or contiguous on not less than 75% of its
total perimiter length to an existing commerical, office or industrial district. The
subject site does not meet either requirement.
Mr. Larsen believes that the designation of the site for office use by the
Comprehensive Plan continues to be valid and desirable. The proposed rezoning
would set an undersirable precedent in the area, would increase traffic congestion
at the nearby intersection, and should, therefore, be denied.
Mr. Gordon Johnson wondered if there were any food facilities in the
triangle bordered by County Road 18, 494, or 169. Upon discussion, Gingas Khan,
and Prairie Motel were mentioned.
Mr. Kenneth "Chip"Glaser spoke. He- discussed two of the more critical
points in the report.
1. There is a definite need for a food service establishment in this area.
The Dairy Queen displays high quality from both the food service standpoint
and from the appearance of the structure.
2. Using the space as it presently exists for an industrial use situation
is not economically feasible.
Mr. Glaser explained that there was room to move the Dairy Queen building
around on the lot so that it would be in compliance with the setbacks.
He mentioned that he had spoken with Mr. Hughes and was informed that
the drive-through may possibly be allowed in the other commerical districts such
as C-1, under provisions of a revised zoning ordinance.
Mr. Glaser noted that the heaviest customer time at this location would be
over the lunch period and, therefore, would not conflict with the morning or
evening traffic congestion.
Mary McDonald suggested that the property was located in a very complicated
driving area. She questioned the entrances and exits. Helen McClelland believed
that a serious traffic hazard would be created in an already difficult location.
Children from the athletic fields on the other side of the highway would be drawn
to the Dairy Queen and add to the vehicle traffic problem.
John Palmer agreed with Helen McClelland. He moved for denial of the request.
Mary McDonald seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
Mary 30, 1983, Meeting
Page six
B-82-2 M. H. Haymaker, Amendment to Overall Development Plan
Mr. Larsen noted that the subject property received final zoning approval
on June 2, 1982, and was subsequently approved by the City Council at its
June 21, 1982, meeting. Construction of the five -unit townhouse project has
not begun.
The proponent has returned with a request to modify the overall development
plan for the site. This modification would add a third bedroom to Unit C in the
three unit building. The addition is approximately 10 feet by 27 feet or 270 square feet.
Mr. Larsen explained that the proponent originally requested a modification
to allow the addition of a third bedroom to three of the units, but was informed that
Staff would recommend denial because of the adverse impact on the existing single
family home next door. The proponent responded by changing his request to only
one of the units. However, this would still be in conflict with the building code
requirement of building separation.
Mr. Larsen believed that the addition of one bedroom to one unit would
not be detrimental to the project. If the proponent were willing to add the
bedroom to Unit A on the two unit building, Staff would recommend approval .
Staff recommends denial to any change to the three unit building.
Del Johnson expressed his concern regarding the small distance separating
the buildings. Mr. Haymaker explained that there was a greater demand for three
bedroom units. He stated that there was some room to work with and the building
could be moved in order to make the spacing somewhat larger.
Gordon Johnson suggested that Mr. Haymaker evaluate the situation and
return with revised plans noting the mentioned changes. Fran Hoffman advised
the Commission that the utility plans had not been presented as of yet and
suggested that the proposal be continued.
Mary McDonald moved that the proposal be continued until a later date.
John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
IV. Adjournment
Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment and Del Johnson seconded the motion.
All were in favor. The motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Eisen
Secretary