HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 02-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE R1M-AR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING CCMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1984 AT 7:30 P.M.
Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, John Skagerberg, Helen McClelland, David
Runyan and John Bailey.
STAFF PRESENT:
Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Linda Elsen, Secretary
I. Approval of the December 28, 1983,'Minutes:
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All
were in favor; the motion carried.
II. Old Business:
Z-83-7 Johnson Building Co., 5212 Vernon Avenue S.
S-83-12 Vernon Hill Condominiums
Mr. Hughes stated that the subject property was rezoned to PRD -5, Planned
Residential District on November 21, 1983. The overall development plan approved at that
time showed a single condominium building containing 77 units and the proponent now
requests approval of a revised plan which allows the construction of the project in two
phases. This plan separates the project into two buildings which are joined by a one-
story lobby area. All other aspects of the project are unchanged except for a southerly
extention of the building by about 50 feet and the elimination of the one story garage
element on the south end.
Council granted preliminary plan approval of a one lot, one block subdivision on
December 5. Staff presumes a two lot subdivision of the property would now be submitted
to accommodate the phasing plan.
Mr. Hughes believes that the revised plan does not significantly alter the overall
design of the project. In fact, the proposed redesign should desirably reduce the
apparent mass of the building.
However, Staff is concerned with the proposed phasing plan as it relates to the
platting of the property and use of the existing motel. Mr. Hughes requests 1.) Phase I
must be able to stand on its own, 2.) the use of the motel on the Phase II property is
short lived, and 3.) the subsequent development of the Phase II site by developers other
than the present developer complies with the present overall development plan.
Therefore, the following recommendations:
1. A proposed lot line separating lots 1 and 2 of the proposed plat must be
located so as to provide at least a 40 foot setback from the Phase I building. Lot 1 must
also accommodate all required parking for the Phase I building.
-2-
2. A demolition permit for the entire motel must be applied for and issued prior
to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I.
3. No final inspections shall be conducted or occupancy certificates issued until
the entire motel has been demolished.
4. An access easement must be provided to allow the Phase II project to utilize
the proposed entrance and median break on the Phase I property. No other curb cut on
Vernon Avenue should be permitted if the Phase II project is developed by others.
Mr. Bob Johnson and Mr. Mike Klein, Johnson Building Co., were present.
Mr. Del Johnson wondered what the empty lot would look like during the interim.
Mr. Klein presented graphics of the property in two phases. Mr. Klein explained the Phase
II would depend on financing.
Mrs. McClelland recommended that the property be left as one lot. She noted
concern of the proposed signalization on Link Ave. Mr. Hughes said that a traffic study
had been conducted for the area and a signal of Link Avenue was suggested. Mr. Gordon
Johnson requested that the Planning Commission be allowed to review the Traffic Study at
the next meeting.
Mr. Skagerberg asked the estimated time before contruction would start on Phase
II. Mr. Bob Johnson answered 45 days before the start of Phase I which would take
approximately 8 months and depending on the sale results of Phase I, Phase II would begin
approximately 3 months after.
Mr. Skagerberg also questioned the number of units. Mr. Klein reported that they
were 29 units in Phase I along with a caretaker unit and 48 in Phase II. He pointed out
the improvements in the phasing proposal of the shorter one story inbetween the two
phases.
Mrs. McClelland agreed that the design appeared to be an improvement, however, she
believed the problem was in the phasing proposal. Mr. Gordon Johnson was concerned with
the possibility that Phase II may not develop and Mrs. McClelland suggested that Phase II
be an outlot. Mr. Hughes assured them that the zoning plan would cause new owners to
return with their plans.
Mr. Skagerberg commented that any new owner would still be restricted to the
setbacks for that lot. They would be held to basically the same plan as is proposed
presently. Mr. Bailey noted also that it would be to a new owners benefit to be
compatible with the property next to them.
Mr. Skagerberg believed that there were enough safe guards. He moved for approval
of the overall plan amendment subject to Staff's recommendations. Mr. Runyan seconded the
motion. All were in favor with the exception of Mrs. McClelland, who opposed the
proposal. The motion carried.
Z-83-6 Haymaker. Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 4, Grandview Heights.
S-84-1 Preliminary Plat of Interlachen Point.
Mr. Hughes reported that the City Council granted preliminary rezoning approval to
PRD -3 for the subject property on December 19, 1983. The preliminary plans illustrated
eight townhouse units which would be integrated with five identical units which were
-3 -
previously approved. The proponents have now returned with an overall development plan
and are requesting final rezoning approval. Preliminary plan has also been submitted.
The proposed subdivision anticipates a one lot plat of the property with
individual units to be conveyed via condominium documents. At present, the previously
approved five -units are not proposed to be included in the plat. Also, the landscape plan
pays special attention to the westerly property line by proposing eight, 8 - 10 foot
conifers for screening purposes.
The proponents will shortly submit a petition for the vacation of Summit Avenue.
The preliminary development plan as well as the attached final plans were based on the
understanding that the Summit Avenue right of way measured 46 feet in width. It now
appears that this right of way is actually 40 feet in width. A separate 6 foot wide
easement to Edina for "open space and landscape purposes" adjoins the east side of the 40
foot right of way. It is not now clear whether the 6 foot easement can be vacated along
with the 40 foot easement. If it cannot be vacated, the building and parking setback from
the east lot line will be reduced even though the positions of the building will be
unchanged.
Mr. Hughes added in connection with the Summit Avenue vacation, the Council
requested that the Traffic Safety Committee review access to the site from Interlachen
Boulevard. The Committee recommended that Interlachen should be limited to one-way into
the site. As a second alternative that an island be constructed at the intersection of
the driveway and Interlachen which would allow full access into the site but right turns
only out of the site.
Mr. Hughes believes that the project will provide an excellent redevelopment of
these properties. He recommended final zoning approval conditioned upon:
1. Inclusion of the Traffic Safety Committee's recommendations into the overall
development plan. Staff favors the Committee's second alternative.
2. Revision of the utility plan to:
a. loop the water main to connect to existing lines south of the site for
fire protection;
b. relocate sewer and water lines such that they are located under pavement
areas rather than landscape areas;
c. provide additional information as to the feasibility of the storm sewer
proposed for the site.
3. Vacation of Summit Avenue.
4. Final plat approval. Staff believes it would be desirable to include the
Phase I property in the plat.
5. Developer's Agreement.
6. Subdivision Dedication.
Mr. Gordon Johnson read a petition from a couple of the neighbors on Hankerson
Avenue which required mature conifer trees between their homes and the proposed project.
-4 -
They requested white or blue spruce trees and that the shade trees be at least 6" diameteâ–º-
trees.
Bob Halfer, 5021 Hankerson Avenue, stated that he was concerned with his privacy,
which is why they recommended the trees they did.
Joseph Romain, the developer, noted that the suggested trees would be too
expensive, although they would be happy themselves with a improved landscaping.
Marvin Huiros, 5025 Handerson, explained that in speaking with the Edina Forester,
it was suggested that the white spruce would be more appropriate for screening, density
and appearance and that trees with 2 1/2" diameter would take 10 years before they would
be useful for shading.
Mr. Del Johnson suggested to the proponents that they accept landscaping
contributions from the neighbors and Mr. Romain stated that they would be readily
accepted.
Mrs. McClelland wondered what problems would be created if the 6 foot easement
would not added to the project. Mr. Hughes explained that this was more of a problem when
a courtyard was proposed previously for the project. Mr. Gordon Johnson asked about the
progress of the vacation and Mr. Hughes noted that Council had approved the first reading.
Mr. Runyun moved for approval of the plans as submitted subject to Staff
recommendations. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mrs.
McClelland obstained. The motion carried.
Z-83-9 Kyllo Development
S-83-14 Vernon Court Addition
Mr. Hughes stated that the preliminary plans for the subject development were
reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council on December 28, 1983, and January 16,
1984, respectively. These plans illustrated a five -unit townhouse project for the site
which conformed with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the property for low density
attached residential uses.
The proponent has now submitted an overall development plan for the site and
requests final rezoning approval. The overall development plan includes a utility plan,
grading plan, landscape plan and elevation drawings.
Mr. Hughes recommended approval conditioned upon:
1. Final platting.
2. Subdivision dedication.
3. Conveyance of residual right of way from the City.
4. Modification of the utility plan to increase water service to 8 inch diameter.
Easements should be shown on the plat for these easements.
Mr. Howard Kyllo presented graphics.
Mr. Del Johnson moved for approval subject to Staff's suggested conditions and Mr.
Bailey seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
III. New Business:
M=
LD -84-1 riot 3, Block 1, McCauley Heights 3rd Addition
6408-10 McCauley Circle
Mr. Hughes reported that the proponents request a party wall division of an
existing two-family dwelling. Individual untility connections are provided. He
recommended approval.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All
were in favor; the motion carried.
LD -84-2 Lot 3, Block 1, The Habitat
6100-02 Waterford Court
Mr. Hughes again stated that the proponents request a party wall division of a
recently completed two-family dwelling. Individual utility connections are provided. He
recommended approval.
Mr. Skagerberg moved for approval and Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All
were in favor; Mr. Gordon Johnson obstained. The motion carried.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Del Johnson moved for adjournment and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All
were in favor; the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
s
Linda Elsen