Loading...
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