Loading...
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