HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 03-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1985, AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland,
David Runyan, John Skagerberg, John Palmer, Len Ring,
Viriginia Shaw, and John Bailey
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Lewis and Phil Sked
STAFF PRESENT;
Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Linda Elsen, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 27, 1985
Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the minutes and Mr.
Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor; the
motion carried. The minutes of February 27, 1985, were
approved.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S-85-3 William C. Hansen Addition
Generally located: South of Grove Street and east of
Johnson Drive
Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting a
two -lot subdivision of the property resulting in one new
building site. The new lot would measure approximately 92
feet by 121 feet and contain 11,137 square feet. The lot
retained for the existing dwelling would measure 108 feet by
121 feet and would be 13,069 square feet in area. The
attached garage of the existing dwelling would maintain a
conforming 5 foot setback from the new property line. Both
lots would exceed zoning ordinance requirements for single -
dwelling unit lots.
The existing dwelling is served with sanitary sewer and
water from Grove Street. It would be necessary to relocate
these services if a dwelling were constructed on the new
lot. The proponent has shown an additional five foot
utility easement on the easterly side of Lot 1 and has
indicated a willingness to relocate utilities serving Lot 2
to this easement. There are no utilities available in
Johnson Drive. The proponent has also indicated that he
will relocate the existing driveway to Johnson Drive.
Mr. Hughes stated that Staff supports approval of the
subdivision as proposed and would recommend the following
conditions to preliminary approval:
1. Subdivision dedication
2. Relocation of the existing utilities to the
proposed easement prior to final plat approval
3. Relocation of the existing driveway to Johnson
Drive.
Mr. Bill Hansen was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Palmer moved for approval subject to the conditions
suggested by the Staff. Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion.
All were in favor; the motion carried.
Z-85-2 Planned Residential District -3.
Final Development Plan Approval
S-85-4 Edina Highpointe II
Generally located: West of Cahill Road and north of
Amundson Avenue extended.
Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property measures
2 1/2 acres in area and is presently occupied with two
single-family homes which are in a poor state of repair.
Prior to enactment of the City's new Zoning Ordinance in
March, 1984, this property was zoned R-3, Multiple
Residential District. The property was rezoned to PRD -3,
Planned Residential District in conjunction with the
enactment of the new Zoning Ordinance with the provision
that the Commission and Council must approve final
development plans prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
The final development plans include a site plan, grading
plan, floor plans and elevation drawings. A 26 unit
condominium building which equates to 10 1/2 units per acre,
is proposed for the site. The proposed building will be
complementary in terms of style and materials to the
applicants 16 unit condominium building located directly
north of the site.
Mr. Hughes told the Commission that the subject
property slopes from an elevation of 872 at the northeast
corner to 838 at the southwest corner. The proposed
building steps down from the north to south to take
advantage of this slope. The result of this design is, in
essence, two, three-story buildings which are joined at the
lobby area. The lowest floor of the northerly portion of
the building is nine feet higher than the lowest floor of
the southerly portion of the building. This results in a
building which is four stories in height at the lobby. The
Zoning Ordinance limits building height to three stories in
PRD -3. Thus, a variance is required. All other aspects of
the project comply with the Ordinance.
The applicant has also submitted a one -lot plat of the
project as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff believes the only recommended modification of the
plans is to increase slightly the radius of the front
driveway to meet the requirements of the Fire Department.
Due to the topography of the site, an excellent design will
be fostered by the grant of this variance. Therefore, final
development plan approval and preliminary plat approval is
recommended subject to:
1. Final platting
2. Subdivision dedication
3. Detailed review of the final grading plan by the
Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building
permit to assure proper drainage.
Mr. Ron Clark was present to answer questions.
Mr. Del Johnson asked the distance between the closest
corner of the northerly building and the proposed building.
Mr. Hughes said there was 70 feet. Mr. Johnson also
inquired about the density and was told the Highpointe II
would be slightly more.
In response to a question from Mr. Gordon Johnson, Mr.
Clark stated that an elevator would be installed in the
proposed building whether or not it was required by the
Building Code.
Mrs. McClelland moved for final development plan and
preliminary plat approval along with the granting of the
building height variance due to the topography hardship.
Approval is subject to the conditions recommended in the
Staff Report. Mr. Ring seconded the motion. All were in
favor; the motion carried.
LD -85-2 Lot 2, Block 1, Lindahl's Addn.
4233- 35 Valley View Road
Mr. Hughes reported the applicant requests a party -wall
division of an existing two-family dwelling on Valley View
Road. The applicant has applied for an received a waiver of
the City's requirement for separate utility connections. He
recommended approval.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Skagerberg
seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried._
III. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 1, 1985
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Runyan moved for adjournment and Mr. Skagerberg
seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
= r------�-----------
Linda Elsen, Secretary