HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 07-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 1983, AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Dave
Runayan, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, John Palmer, John
Skagerberg, Len Ring, and Phil Sked.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary McDonald and John Bailey
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner
Linda Elsen, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 29, 1983
John Skagerberg moved for approval of the June 29, 1983
minutes and John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor;
the motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS
Z-83-4 Vernon Development Co., R-2, Two Family District
to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. Gener-
ally
located west of Cahill Road and south of Braemar
Oaks Apartments. Overall Development Plan.
S-83-8 Ohio Buckeye Condominiums. Preliminary Plat Approval
=2 -
Craig Larsen explained that the preliminary development
plan for the subject property was approved by the Commission on
June 1, 1983, and by the City Council on June 20, 1983. This
approval was subject to the project being reduced from 36 units
to 33 units in size. All other aspects of the project conformed
with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
He noted that the proponents have now submitted an
overall development plan for the project and are requesting final
rezonig approval. A preliminary plat has also been submitted. A
preliminary grading plan, utility layout, elevation drawings and
a landscape plan and schedule have been included in the overall
development plan as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the proponents'
overall development plan responds to the direction of the City
Council at the time of preliminary approval and that Staff's only
critisim of this plan is the landscape element. Many of the
preserved trees on the site are box elder and elm which are
relatively short lived or disease prone; therefore, Staff
suggests the addition of ten overstory trees to the schedule.
Also the size classification of white ash and sugar maple should
be changed from 2 - 3" to 2 1/2 - 3" to avoid confusion.
Mr. Larsen recommended approval of the preliminary plat
subject to subdivision dedication. He suggested that a land
-3 -
dedication along the southerly property boundary should be
required. This dedication would beneficially expand and square
off Lewis Park. Final rezoning is also recommended subject to
the conditions mentioned.
Mr. Bill Bale, Vernon Development Co, was in agreement
with the parkland dedication suggestion. He noted, however,
that this would bring the road which leads to the Gittleman
project closer to their property. He questioned if they would be
allowed to berm along that property line?
Mr. Larsen stated that Staff would be in favor of the
berm and landscaping as a buffer between to the two projects
rather than fencing.
Mr. David Runyan thought the
berming would be fine as long as it did not run too far east,
blocking the vision of the traffic approaching Cahill.
Mr. Larsen noted that it should be additional landscaping
in that area and not landscaping taken from another area of the
project. Mr. Bale agreed to the landscapinging conditions.
Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the overall development
plan and the preliminary plan proposal subject to the conditions
recommended by Staff. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were
in favor. The motion carried.
L'I
III. NEW BUSINESS:
LD -83-5 McTaggert.
Heights.
-4-
Lots 7, 8, and 9; Block 2, Brookside
Generally located south of Interlachen
Boulevard and west of Hanker son Avenue
Mr. Larsen told the Commission that Lots 7 and 9 are
currently developed with single family dwellings. Lot 8 which is
owned by the owners of Lot 7, is undeveloped, except for a garage
near the rear property line. The proposed division would add the
south 15 feet of Lot 8 to Lot 9, making a 65 foot lot. Lot 7 and
the northerly 35 feet of Lot 8 would become and 85 foot lot.
Mr. Larsen recommended approval. The division will
greatly improve the site for the home on Lot 9 and will not
negatively impact the site of the dwelling on Lot 7.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the requested
lot division and Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All
were in favor; the motion carried.
Z-83=6 M. Haymaker. Lots 3, 4, and 5; Block 4,
Grandview Heights,
R-1, Single Family Dwelling District to PRD` -3r
Planned Residential District.
.Generally located south'of the Interlachen Boulevard
west of Summit Avenue and north of Vernon Avenue.,
Mr. Larsen reported that the subject property measures
I
-5-
approximately 25,200 square feet and is currently developed with
three single family dwellings. The proponents are requesting a
rezoning to PRD -3 to redevelop the site with nine townhouse
units.
He reminded the Commission of the recently completed
rezoning of the property immediately to the north of the subject
site. That property wa rezoned to PRD -3 fot five townhouse
units. The present proposal is designed to be a continuation of
the previously approved plan.
The townhouse units will be multi-level, two and three
bedroom units ranging in size from approximately 1,200 to 1,600
square feet. Each unit will have a two car tuck -under garage.
Mr. Larsen noted that the proponent now controls all
properties that gain street access from Summit Avenue and is
proposing the vacation of the public street and providing access
to the property via a private drive. The right of way proposed
for vacation measures 40 feet by approximately 240 feet, or 9600
square feet. However, only one-half or a 20 feet strip, would
revert to the subject parcel upon vacation. The remainder would
go to the property to the east.
The proposed plan shows a continuation of the 12 foot
setback provided on the westerly side of the previously approved,
five -unit, project. However, the plan shows decks which extend
to within ten feet of the property lines. The setback along the
easterly property line assumes the acquisition of 22+ feet of the
right of way from Summit Avenue. The PRD section requires a 35
foot setback from all property lines. Thus a 25 foot setback
-6 -
variance would be required.
Mr. Larsen explained that the proposed plan responds well
to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, which
envisioned the vacation of Summit Avenue with moderate density
housing serving as a transition between single family dwellings
and commerical uses in the vicinity. The proposed overall plan
complies with the density standards of the PRD -3 section of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff likes to see the entire Summit Avenue
area being redeveloped under a single overall plan.
Staff has several concerns with the proposal. The site
is quite crowded. In townhouse developements it is assumed that
most, if not all, guest parking will be directly in front of the
individual garages. The proposed plan lacks room for any guest
parking in front of the garages or anywhere else on the site.
Space between buildings should be increased to allow for guest
parking in front of the indivudal garages while maintaining a
minimum 20 foot wide roadway for emergency vehicles access. In
addition, the radius of the curve into the development should be
increase to 50 feet to allow for fire vehicle access.
There is also a concern with the proposed westerly
property line setbacks. The rationale for allowing a 12 foot
setback along the westerly side in Phase I was that it served as
a side yard, and only one corner of the building was within 12
feet of the lot line. In Phase II the entire length of a three
unit building is proposed to maintain this setback. In order to
lessen the impact on the neighboring single family dwelling, the
setback for the three -unit building should be increased to the 25
-7 -
feet required for a rear yard in the R-1 District.
Mr. Larsen noted in final that there are several
technical problems on the site that must be addressed. The
provision of storm sewer and water services to th site will be
difficult. These utilities are not available in Summit Avenue.
Mr. Larsen did not recommended approval of the present
plan, but would support a plan which satisfactorily answered the
concerns mentioned. Any approval should be contingent on a
developer's agreement and platting of the entire property, Phase
I and Phase II.
Phil Sked wondered wondered the three -unit building
could be moved to accomodate the 25 foot requirement. Mr.
Larsen felt the answer for space would involve the right of way
on Summit Avenue. He explained that the existing right of way
was 40 feet wide, and in Staff's opinion was of no use to the
people that would receive it, but would be of tremendous use to
the subject project.
Mr. Haymaker explained that if the right of way was
Abstract property it would be devided between the properties.
However, if it Torrens'property, it would go to a court and the
court would decide which was it would best side.
Mr. Haymaker told the Commission that his goal was to
make Phase I and Phase II appear as one project and therefore,
reach some continuity in the setbacks and roof lines. He noted
that the vacation of the street would have a major impact on the
development of this project.
Mr. Palmer question what the status of the vacation of
0
-8 -
the street was. Mr. Larsen reported that they had recommended
the proponent wait until the preliminary approval process was
complete.
Mrs. McClelland felt that the density of the project was
too high and the project over crowded.
Mr. Larsen noted that the density of the project was
fairly close to the density of Phase I and if the project
obtained the entire right of way, the density would be slightly
less the required density for PRD -3. He added that in regard to
the setback problem, the homes on Hankerson all posessed large
back yards and the impact would not be a noticeable.
Mr. Palmer questioned what the height comparison to the
surrouding homes was. Mr. Larsen noted that the project was
quite a bit taller than the rambler homes on Hankerson. The
grade was somewhat level.
Mr. Runyan questioned the drive space in the parking lot
area. Was it a City law that the guests couldn't park somewhere
and walk? Mr. Larsen informed that there was no requirements for
quest parking for townhouses in the Zoning Ordinance. There
could be guest parking for the project along the private drive,
however, then the drive width would have to be increased.
Mr. Haymaker noted that they had tried to maintain the
same spacing that was approved in Phase I. The access into the
units is the same radius that has previously been approved.
Mr. Runyan felt they needed to have more room and the
only solution would be to eliminate one of the units. Mr.
Haymaker announced that they would be willing to propose lesser
units and make them larger if it were necessary.
Mrs. McClelland stated that this was premature at such a
preliminary stage. Mr. Gordon Johnson advised that the three
family dwelling unit to the west should be removed and that could
solve many of the problems.
Mr. Haymaker said that they were working with a time
limit, however, he would be willing to continue the proposal in
order to solve some of the problems.
Mr. Runyan moved that the proposal be tabled until a
later date and Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in
favor; the motion carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment and Mrs. McClelland
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting was
adjourned.