HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 09-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT;
Chairman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Phil
Sked, Helen McClelland, Dave Runyan, John Palmer and
Virginia Shaw'
MEMBERS ABSENT:
John Bailey, Len Ring, John Skagerberg
I. Approval of the Minutes; August 29, 1984
Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the minutes and Mr. Sked seconded the
motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS;
Z-83-7 Johnson Building Company, Vernon Hills
& Condominiums, PRD -4, Planned Residential
5-83-12 District, Plan Amendment
Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the City Council granted final
development plan approval and rezoning to PRD -5, Planned Residential
District, for the subject property on November 21, 1983. The approved
final development plan proposed a 77 unit condominium building. Several
months after final zoning approval, the applicant requested and received a
plan amendment which split the project into two separate buildings linked
by a one-story common area. This was for phasing purposes
In March of this year, the City adopted its new Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance. This Zoning Ordinance renumbered the subdistricts within the
PRD classification. As a result of this renumbering, it was apparent that
the subject property was more appropriately zoned PRD -4 rather,than PRD -5.
This zoning was effectuated in conjunction with the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Hughes explained that the applicant has attempted to market the
proposed project without success due apparently to the cost of the units.
To reduce the cost, the applicant requests approval a plan with the
following revisions:
* The total number of units would be increased from 77 to 88 units
* The size of the units would be decreased
* A small surface parking lot would be added to the southerly extreme
of the site to satisfy exterior parking requirements. The enclosed parking
ratio would decrease from 1.6 spaces per unit to 1.4
* The soloria would be replaced with screened porches
* The flat roof would be replaced with a hip roof.
* The brick and stucco exterior would be replaced with wood shingle
siding and brick and stucco trim.
Mr. Hughes noted that although the building remains at four stories,
the overall height has increased somewhat due to teh new roof form and a
change in the structural system of the building. According to the Zoning
Ordinance, the required setback from all property lines must be at least
equal to the building height. Therefore, a 45 foot setback is required for
the proposed building. Although the main portion of the buidling complies
with this requirement, the screen porches project into the setback.
Therefore, the Commission and Council should consider a variance for these
encroachments.
The revised plans result in an increase in density from 22 units per
acre to 25 units per acre.
Mr. Hughes believes that the proposed amendment represents a
reasonable alternative to the original project. The proposed unit sizes,
landscaping plan, parking quantity, and so forth continue to exceed our
standards. Staff recommended approval conditioned upon:
1. Final platting, and
2. Subdivision dedication.
Mr. Bob Johnson, Johnson Building Co., stated that the revision of the
roof line and exterior materials fit in better with the residential
neighborhood. He noted that the price per unit had decreased from a range
of $150,000 - $265,000 to $90,000 - $197,000. The units were smaller in
size.
Discussion ensued regarding the height of the building and the setback
required. Mr. Johnson commented that without the height setback
requirement, the property required only a 35 foot setback.
Mr. Gordon Johnson wondered when this project would be started. Mr.
Johnson stated that it depended on the sales projections.
Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the plan amendment subject to the
conditions suggested by Staff. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All were
in favor; the motion carried.
u
III. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment and Mrs. McClelland seconded
the motion. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
{A G f
Linda D. Elsen