HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 06-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, David Runyan,
Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland, John Skagerberg,
Leonard Ring, Phil Sked and John Bailey
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Linda Elsen, Secretary
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 27, 1983
Mary McDonald moved for approval of the minutes and John Skagerberg
seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried. The minutes were
approved.
If. OLD BUSINESS:
S-83-2 Normandale Bluff
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that they considered subdivision
proposals for this property on March 2, March 30 and April 27. On April 27, the
Commission recommended approval of a subdivision plan which would result in the
creation of three lots measuring 75 feet in width and 10, 125 square feet in area.
The substantial remodeling of the existing dwelling on the site was required in
order to achieve such a subdivision. On May 16, the City Council referred the
request back to the Commission with the instructions that it reconsider a plan which
would result in only one additional homesite on the property.
Mr. Hughes noted that in response to the Council's request, the proponents
have submitted a revised plan illustrating one new lot to the north of the existing
dwelling. The existing garage on the dwelling would be converted from a three
stall to a two stall in order to provide the required 75 foot width for the new lot.
The proponent states that the remodeling on the south side of the dwelling is no
longer under consideration and, thus, no new building site south of this dwelling
is proposed. He added that this southerly lot relies only on.a grant of a setback
variance by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Although the proponent states
no intention of pursuing this variance now, he or a new owner of the property may
elect to pursue this request at a later date.
Mr. Hughes listed the following options for the Commission:
1. Reaffirmation of its April 27, 1983, approval.
2. Approval of the proponent's present request.
3. Approval of one new lot measuring 62 feet in width and located to the
south of the existing home. Such a lot would be approved without the
necessity of remodeling the existing home (except the deck) as previously
proposed.
4. Approval of one new lot measuring 75 feet in width and located to the
south of the existing home. Such a lot would require the substantial remodeling
of the existing dwelling.
5. Denial.
Community Development and Planning Commission
June 1, 1983, Meeting
Page two
Considering the direction of the City Council, Staff believes that the
proponent's present request would be the most prudent alternative to consider.
The north lot does notexhibit. the topography and drainage problems of the south
lot nor would substantial remodeling of the existing dwelling be required. The
advantage of the south lot is that it may be viewed as less of an intrusion into
the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Hughes recommended approval of the proponent's present request
conditioned upon 1.) remodeling of the garage; and 2.) subdivision dedication.
Mr. and Mrs. Duncan Wallace were present. Mr. Wallace explained that
they were proposing to build on the north side of the existing dwelling in accordance
with the Council's recommendation for only two homesites on the property. This was
also an attempt to satisfy their neighbors objections concerning the southerly lot.
Mr. Wallace stated that it was not their intention at this time for any further construction
regarding the southerly lot.
Mr. Bob Price, 6412 Rolf Avenue, suggested that the opinions of the surrounding
neighbors should be an important factor in the decision making process. He reminded
the Commission that the property was already subdivided into two lots and the
southerly lot would require only a variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Mr. Price anticpated that a home would eventually be built on the southerly lot
in addition to approval of the subdivision on the north end of the property.
Mr. Price pointed out that the average size lot in the neighborhood is 94 2 feet.
The median is about 89 Z feet -- bother larger figures than 75 feet. He pointed out
that the lots closer to the park all increase in size as compared to other lots in the
area. Mary McDonald stated that there were smaller sized lots on Tingdale. She
concluded that the neighborhood was made up of diversed sized lots.
Mr. Price suggested three options:
1. Deny the subdivision request.
2. To insure only two buildable lots, create a 90 foot wide northerly lot.
The garage could be moved completely to the south end of the existing
home, therefore, prohibiting any further house construction on that
lot. The lot sizes would then be more compatible with the neighborhood.
3. Suggest that the Council render the south 75 feet of the property, unbuild-
able. This can be done through parkland dedication. The south 75 feet
could be declared an outlot because of drainage. Or a final possibility,
scenic easement or a conservation restriction could be imposed.
In closing, Mr. Price suggested that the Commission either deny the proposal to
subdivide the north end of the property or continue this item for one month in order
to give the proposal further study or to discuss the proposal with the proponent.
Arlene Joern, 6433 Mildred Avenue, expressed her concern that upon the
approval of the recent subdivision request, the proponent or perhaps a new owner,
may decide to apply for a variance in order to build on that lot in the future.
David Runyan commented that although the neighbors were concerned with
the "character" of the neighborhood, he felt the Wallace home and the large lot it
presently sat on, was not within the character of the neighborhood.
Community Development and Planning Commission
June 1, 1983, Meeting.
Page three
Helen McClelland wondered what the Wallaces and the other neighbors
thought of Mr. Price's 90 foot wide lot suggestion. Mr. Wallace did not
approve of the suggestions noting that the garage on the south would block
his view of the park. The neighbors, however, generally approved. Mr. Wallace
also commented that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments was made up of many
of the Planning Commission members. Should he apply for a variance, he would
find it necessary to appear before these same commissioners. He felt that by
placing a special encumbrance on his lot it would, be unfair, since none of the other
properties, he assumed, in the neighborhood had one.
Del Johnson questioned if Mr. Wallace would agree to a building restriction
on the southerly 75 feet of the property if granted approval. Mr. Wallace did not
agree to this.
Mr. Price's son expressed his concern in the preservation of openness
in this neighborhood in which he grew up.
John Skagerberg moved for approval of the two lot subdivision as presented
with the conditions recommended by Staff. David Runyan seconded the motion,
roll was taken and the motion failed 5 - 4. The following were opposed: Bill Lewis,
Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, Len Ring and Phil Sked. The following voted
in favor: Del Johnson, David Runyan, John Skagerberg and John Palmer. John
Bailey obstained.
No further motions were offered. Helen McClelland stated that she would
recommend that the Council consider Mr. Price's proposal of a northerly 90 foot
lot.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-83-4 Vernon Development Co., 7208 Cahill Road. Generally located
west of Cahill Road and south of Braemar Oaks Apartments.
Mr. Hughes reported that the Subject property measures 3.6 acres in area
and is zoned R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. The site is bounded on the north
by Braemar Oaks Apartments, on the west by a parcel recently rezoned to PRD -3
for Gittleman Corporation, and on the south by Lewis Park. Across the street to
the east are industrial uses. The site is designated for medium density residential
uses (6-12 units /acre) by the Comprehensive Plan.
He noted that the proponents are requesting a rezoning to PRD -3, Planned
Residential District for the property. Preliminary development plans have been
submitted which illustrate a 36 unit three story condominium building. Fifty under -
building parking stalls and 22 exposed stalls will be provided on the site. Brick
veneer is the primary exterior materials. The proposed density for the development
is 10.0 units/acre. Braemar Oaks Apartments is approximately 12 units per acre and
the recently approved Gittleman project is 9.25 units per acre.
The project appears to conform with ordinance requirements as to setbacks,
parking, building height and so forth.
Community Development and Planning Commission
June 1, 1983, Meeting
Page four
Mr. Hughes said he believes that the proposed project is compatible in scale
and design with the multi -family housing in the area. However, there has been
concern for the density of multi -family developments in recent years. Although
the site can easily accomodate the number of units requested, its density should
not exceed that of the Gittleman project. Staff recommends a reduction to 33 units.
He recommended preliminary approval conditioned upon:
1. Acceptable overall development plans. (Grading plans and utility plans
should be coordinated with the Gittleman project.)
2. Final Platting.
Mr. Bill Bale, Vernon Development Co., stated that the building was designed
to preserve the present trees and shrubbery on the site. He reiterated Mr. Hughes
statements in more detail regarding the setbacks, and the underbuilding parking.
In reply to a question, he noted that the price of the units ranged from 85 - 88,000 for
a 2 bedroom and 95 - 97, 000 for a 3 bedroom. He felt that the proposed density was
reasonable.
Mr. Bale introduced Mr. Doug Moe, architect and Mr. Jim Culitan,_contractor.
Mr. Moe informed the Commission that the trees on the site played an important part.
The condominium is proposed to be called "Ohio -Buckeye Condominiums" named after
a large buckeye located on the site.
He noted that the parking was kept away from the building as much as possibl
He reported on the exterior materials and noted that they were compatible with the
surroundings.
David Runyan noted that the Gittleman Corporation's project was closest to
the residential area do the Vernon Development project -is located on a busy street
in a somewhat industrial area. Why was there such a concern to match Gittleman's
density? Mr. Hughes explained that Council has been cautious in the past to be consisten
with overall density.
Phil Sked wondered if the density was measured on just the particular piece
of ground or was it based on a larger scope? Mr. Hughes stated that it was measured
on the 3.6 tract..
Mr. Runyan wondered if 3 units could be taken off of the proposed plan. Mr.
Moe reported that two would be more favorable if it were necessary to remove any.
Mr. Del Johnson noted that the price would have to be increased if there were a cut
back in the number of units and Mr. Bale agreed. The present price proposal
is comparable to the Gittleman project.
Mr. Johnson motioned for approval of the preliminary rezoning subject
to a reduction to 34 units. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor;
the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
June 1, 1983, Meeting
Page five
Z-83-5 Jon DeMars Victorsen, R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Two
Family District, 4544 France Avenue. Generally located west
of France and north of 46th Street extended.
Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures 7,200 square feet
in area (45' x 160') and is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling District. The property
is improved as a single family dwelling.
The property was located within the Village of Morningside prior to its
annexation to Edina. Morningside allowed single family dwellings to be converted
into duplexes for a period following World War 11. Such conversions were allowed
without requiring a formal rezoning. During this time, the subject dwelling was
converted to a duplex through the creation of a _separate second story unit which
was accessed by an exterior stairway. The stairs within the house were abandoned.
He explained that following the annexation of Morningside, Edina apparently
viewed the duplex as a lawfully existing non -conforming use under the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance. This condition existed until 1978, at which time the
property was sold and the building remained vacant for over one year. Under the
terms of the Zoning Ordinance, non -conforming uses cannot be re-established if
discontinued for one year or more. In 1978, a new owner of the property re-established
a duplex (in fact a third dwelling unit was created in the basement) . The City issued
an order to discontinue the property's use as a duplex. The owner complied.
Mr. Hughes stated that the present owner of the property is now requesting a
rezoning to R-2, Two Family Dwelling District. His stated desire is to re-establish
lawfully the use of the building as a duplex and cites conformance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan and the historic use of the property as a duplex and cites conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the historic use of the property as a duplex as the reasons
for the request.
Mr. Hughes confirmed that the rezoning of the subject property to R--2 conforms
with the Comprehensive Plan graphic which illustrates "low d.enisty attached" uses
on -logs fronting on France Avenue. The Plan also states these policies:
Consider the redevelopment or retrofitting of single family dwellings
to multi -family uses if located in areas designated as low density attached
residential. Such redevelopment or retrofitting should require rezoning
and upgrading of dwellings and properties to multi -family standards.
Allow redevelopment or retrofitting of existing dwellings fronting on France
Avenue for low density attached residential uses. Require rezoning for all
such re -uses.
Mr. Hughes noted that the present Zoning Ordinance is not very adaptable to the
concept of retrofitting a dwelling as proposed. The following summarizes the require-
ments of the Ordinance compared with the proposal:
Ir
Community Development and Planning Commission
June 1, 1983, Meeting
Page six
Required Proposed
Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft.
Garage 4 stalls 2 stalls
Side Yard 10+ feet 5 feet
Floor Area 950 sq. ft. for 780 sq, ft.
two bedroom
Garage Setback 5 ft. 1 ft.
Building Construction some substandard elements
Mr. Hughes noted that Staff's opinion is the project should be viewed as
a single family dwelling with an accessory apartment unit rather than as a duplex.
Although a rezoning to R-2 should be required, Staff does not believe that the
Ordinance standards for traditional R-2 buildings should be imposed in such cases.
Similar requests are anticipated, especially on lots abutting France Avenue.
Mr. Hughes recommended that this item be continued until the June 29th meeting
in order to allow Staff to draft guidelines for design, construction and other aspects
of such buildings for the Commission's consideration along with the fact that the
rezoning sign was not posted ten days prior to this meeting as required. The
proponent was in agreement with this continuance.
Mr. James Van Valkenberg was present representing Mr. Victorsen.
Mr. Mike Klein, Johnson Building Co., reminded the Commission that he had
requested a rezoning at 4600 France Avenue at an earlier meeting. His desired
density of 11.5 per acre was denied and 7 units per acre was approved. He suggeste
that the requested density should not be approved because his desired density was not.
Mrs. McClelland explained that the Johnson Building townhouse project should not be
compared to the present single family dwelling unit. Each had a different impact on
the nieghborhood.
Mary Jo Aiken, 4548 France Avenue objected to the proposal. She felt it
would create overwhelming traffic problems She noted that many neighbors were
out of town and did not see the sign which was posted late. She felt others would
agree with her.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Runyan moved for adjournment and Phil Sked seconded the motion. All
were in favor, the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Eisen
Secretary