Loading...
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.